The lineage of Ralph de Mortimer

[Carol Whitehead]

With all the discussion about Roger being a direct descendant of Edward III
in the thread about Ralph and Gladys, I am rather uncertain about the
lineage of Ralph de Mortimer who was married to Gladys. Can anyone send me
the lineage--does he go back to Edward.

Thanks so much

carol

[William Addams Reitwiesner]

ha...@swbell.net (Carol Whitehead) wrote:

Ralph de Mortimer and his (claimed) mother-in-law Joan of England were
half-fifth cousins: they're both descended from Herleve, daughter of
Fulbert the tanner, as follows:

Herleve m. Herluin de Conteville
Emma m. Richard le Goz Vct d'Avranches
Margaret m. Ranulph Vct de Bayeux
William Meschin m. Cecily Romilly
Maud m. Hugh de Mortimer
Roger de Mortimer m. Isabel de Ferrieres
Ralph de Mortimer, d. 1246

Herleve = Robert Duke of Normandy
William the Conqueror m. Matilda of Flanders
Henry I King of England m. Matilda of Scotland
Matilda m. Geoffrey Count of Anjou
Henry II King of England m. Eleanor of Aquitaine
John King of England = Clementia
Joan, wife of Llywelyn Fawr ap Iorwerth

Note that all of the links in Ralph's descent from Herleve were legitimate,
while Joan's descent contains two illegitimate connections. (Well, one and
a half -- Joan was legitimated).

So if Joan was Gwladus Ddu's mother, then Ralph married his half-fifth
cousin once removed. I don't know if that was close enough to need a
dispensation :)

Then again, Gwladus Ddu's first husband Reginald de Braose was part-Welsh,
and through that connection Reginald and Gwladus Ddu were half-fourth
cousins of each other.

--
Ceterum censeo DSH delendam esse.

William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com

[canberra]

Dear Carol
Ralph died in 1246 and Edward III lived from 1312-1377 and therefor Ralph
cannot be a descerndant. I had a quick look but could not find any
interesting ancestors for Ralph de Mortimer.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, Ralph de Mortimer, husband of Gladys Dhu, is the 5th
Great-Grandfather of Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March.

Ralph can hardly be a descendant of Edward III ---- that's why dates are
important ---- no matter what some lazy, flakey academics like to
prattle ---- to their lazy, becoming-flakey students.

Important in History and Important in Genealogy.

Edward III was born 66 years after Ralph died.

Deus Vult.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Carol Whitehead" <ha...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:B80F489D.21A8%ha...@swbell.net...

[RMe...@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/07/2001 8:56:43 PM Central Standard Time,
leov...@bigpond.com writes:

> Dear Carol
> Ralph died in 1246 and Edward III lived from 1312-1377 and therefor Ralph
> cannot be a descerndant. I had a quick look but could not find any
> interesting ancestors for Ralph de Mortimer.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
>
>
>

I remember reading somewhere that Ralph de Mortimer's ancestor and William de
Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey were brothers, is this true?
Loyaulte Me Lie,
Rania

[canberra]

Dear Rania
I cannot find any links between Raslph de Mortimer and William de Warenne
but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Hope someone else knows more.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <RMe...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

[RMe...@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/07/2001 10:44:39 PM Central Standard Time,
D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu writes:

> Yes, Ralph de Mortimer, husband of Gladys Dhu, is the 5th
> Great-Grandfather of Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March.
>
> Ralph can hardly be a descendant of Edward III ---- that's why dates are
> important ---- no matter what some lazy, flakey academics like to
> prattle ---- to their lazy, becoming-flakey students.
>
>

But Ralph and Edward III had descendants in common, starting with Roger

Mortimer, 4th Earl of March.

Loyaulte Me Lie,
Rania

[D. Spencer Hines]

Apples and Papayas. : )

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<RMe...@aol.com> wrote in message news:d0.1d7933c...@aol.com...

[The...@aol.com]

Thursday, 8 November, 2001

Hello Rania, et al.,

The link you mentioned between de Mortimer and de Warenne cannot be
correct.

William de Warenne, seigneur de Warenne and lst Earl of Surrey (d.
24 June 1088) was the son on one Rodulf de Warenne, a distant relation of the
young Duke William (the Conqueror) and an ardent supporter. He fought for
the Duke in Normandy at the Battle of Mortemer, 1054; one of William's chief
opponents at the battle was Roger de Mortemer, whose chief possession of
Mortemer-sur-Eaulne was stripped from him and given to de Warenne following
the battle.

As to 'the first descendant' of both Edward I and Roger de Mortimer,
chronologically I show that this was not Elizabeth Mortimer (b. 1370/71),
daughter of Edmund de Mortimer and Philippa of Clarence. I show that Anne le
Despenser, a younger daughter of Edward le Despenser, 4th Lord Le Despenser
(d. 11 Nov 1375), gg grandson of Edward I, and Elizabeth de Burghersh, gggg
granddaughter of Ralph de Mortimer and Gwladys Ddu, was born in or before
1363. Therefore, her oldest sister (which one I'm not sure) would be the
first-born descendant of these two - I believe.

Interesting that this honor would fall to a descendant, not just of
Edward I, Ralph and Gwladys, but also of Hugh le Despenser, the elder, AND
the son (both executed for their relationship with Edward II, at the behest
of Roger de Mortimer, and a few others of note).

Good luck, and good hunting to all.

John

[Todd A. Farmerie]

RMe...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I remember reading somewhere that Ralph de Mortimer's ancestor and William de
> Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey were brothers, is this true?

This claim appears among Robert of Torigny's additions to William
of Jumieges' Gesta. The problem is that William de Warenne and
Roger de Mortimer appear to have been of different generations.
Keats-Rohan has recently proposed that Robert erred by
compressing two successive Warenne generations into one.

A Ranulph de Warenne married a Beatrice. A Beatrice had sons
Ranulph and Roger. A Ranulph de Warenne married Emma and had
sons Ranulph and William (and this Emma was a contemporary of the
first Beatrice, so they apparently were not successive wives of
the same Ranulph, as has previously been suggested). Keats-Rohan
proposes that William de Warenne was son of Ranulph and Emma and
grandson of Ranulph and Beatrice, who were also parents of Roger
de Mortimer.

taf

[D. Spencer Hines]

Rania referred not to descendants of Edward I, but to descendants of
Edward III.

Back to the drawing board.

Deus Vult.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<The...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1e.1def318...@aol.com...

[The...@aol.com]

Thursday, 8 November, 2001

Hello Spencer,

Mea culpa. (Or, Ich bin farblondget !)

Right Ralph, Erroneous Edward on my part.

John

[RMe...@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/07/2001 11:45:03 PM Central Standard Time,
The...@aol.com writes:

> .
>
> Interesting that this honor would fall to a descendant, not just of
> Edward I, Ralph and Gwladys, but also of Hugh le Despenser, the elder, AND
> the son (both executed for their relationship with Edward II, at the behest
> of Roger de Mortimer, and a few others of note).
>

It is very interesting :)

Loyaulte Me Lie,
Rania

[D. Spencer Hines]

Not to worry.

Salvation is mine, saith the Lord. <g>

It's _farblondjet_ [Yiddish] ---- from the Slavic.

Cheers.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

<The...@aol.com> wrote in message news:a5.1e05c05...@aol.com...

[Doug Thompson]

reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote in message news:<3beafd21...@news.erols.com>...

> Then again, Gwladus Ddu's first husband Reginald de Braose was part-Welsh, and through that connection Reginald and Gwladus Ddu were half-fourth cousins of each other.

I'm interested in this but I can't find the common ancestor. Can you enlighten me?

Doug Thompson

[Renia]

Two of the sons of Hugh de Coutances were Rodulf de Warenne (father of
William who married Gundrada) and Roger de Mortemer, father of William
de Mortemer.

Renia

[D. Spencer Hines]

Citations and Quotations?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:3BEAE892...@cwcom.net...

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Renia wrote:
>
> Two of the sons of Hugh de Coutances were Rodulf de Warenne (father of
> William who married Gundrada) and Roger de Mortemer, father of William
> de Mortemer.

While this differs from the Robert of Torigny version in at least
showing William and Roger of different generations, the link to
Hugh of Countances is problematic.

taf

[Renia]

The source is the article "The Origin of the Family of Warenne" by L C
Loyd, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, vol xxxi.

Q
Hugh, bishop of Coutances in Normandy, married a niece of the duchess
Gunnor, the Conqueror's great-grandmother, by whom he had two sons,
Rodulf de Warenne and Roger "filius episcopi", otherwise Roger de Mortemer.
UNQ

This is taken from "a remarkable article on the early history of the
Warennes, which in 1846, Stapleton published in the Archaeological
Journal." Much of Stapleton's work was collected for the article on the
earls of Surrey in 2nd ed of CP.

Stapleton's was the original work on the Mortimers but some conclusions
have warranted further examination.

There is no doubt that Roger de Mortemer was son of Hugh of Coutances.

Keats-Rohan gives the father of (Rodulph) Ralph de Warenne as unknown.

It is known that the two (Roger de Mortemer and Rodulph de Warenne)
shared an inheritance. It is known that Hugh, bishop of Coutances, had a
son called Rodulph. The article by Loyd goes into this in some detail,
examining the cartularies, but he was not convinced that the two were
brothers, but were related a little more distantly.

Renia

[Tim Powys-Lybbe]

In message <3beafd21...@news.erols.com>

reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote:

> ha...@swbell.net (Carol Whitehead) wrote:
>
> >With all the discussion about Roger being a direct descendant of Edward III
> >in the thread about Ralph and Gladys, I am rather uncertain about the
> >lineage of Ralph de Mortimer who was married to Gladys. Can anyone send me
> >the lineage--does he go back to Edward.
>
> Ralph de Mortimer and his (claimed) mother-in-law Joan of England were
> half-fifth cousins: they're both descended from Herleve, daughter of
> Fulbert the tanner, as follows:
>
> Herleve m. Herluin de Conteville
> Emma m. Richard le Goz Vct d'Avranches

In 1913 in Vol III of CP, p. 164, they believed that Emma was the
daughter of Herleve and Herluin.

By 1998 in Vol XIV of CP, p. 170, they (a different 'they') thought this
was false. No reason was given.

And the 2001 view?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org

[William Addams Reitwiesner]

doug.t...@virgin.net (Doug Thompson) wrote:

Nest ferch Gruffudd ap Llywelyn

Nest -> Nesta -> Sybil -> Bertha -> William -> Reginald de Braose
Nest -> Llywarch -> Gwladus -> Iorwerth -> Llywelyn -> Gwladus Ddu

[J.C.B.Sharp]

In article <3e9a74d...@southfrm.demon.co.uk>, t...@powys.org (Tim
Powys-Lybbe) wrote:

D.C.Douglas pointed out that the marriage of Richard earl of Chester and
Matilda daughter of Adela and granddaughter of William I makes this theory
most unlikely (The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury, 52).

It turns out that the only source for the idea is Ranulf Higden, a 14th
century monk of Chester:

Hugo comes Cestrensis, nepos regis Willelmi Conquestoris ex parte sororis
obiit, cui successit filius suus Ricardus puer septem annorum (RS 41, vii
432).

He would have had the Annals of Chester to work from:

Defuncto Hugone comite cestrensi principe nobili, Ricardus puer vij
annorum comitatum suscepit (RSLC xiv 16).

Clearly a noble prince must have a noble pedigree.

But then who was the mother of earl Hugh? When talking of Robert of
Rhuddlan, Orderic calls Hugh 'consobrino suo' (ed.Le Prevost iii 283).
This relationship if taken literally implies that their mothers were
sisters. Elsewhere he identifies Robert's mother as a daughter of Robert
de Grandmesnil. So the wife of Richard Goz may have been another daughter.
That her name was Emma is a separate tradition plucked from thin air, but
in the absence of any evidence is as good as any other.

J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net

[D. Spencer Hines]

Hmmmmmmm.

So, The Rottweiler is wrong on both of these ---- or not?

The Plot Thickens.

Deus Vult.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"J.C.B.Sharp" <jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net> wrote in message
news:memo.20011109...@obtfc.compulink.co.uk...

[Stewart Baldwin]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 12:47:14 GMT, reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org
(William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote:

>doug.t...@virgin.net (Doug Thompson) wrote:
>
>>reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote in message news:<3beafd21...@news.erols.com>...
>>
>>> Then again, Gwladus Ddu's first husband Reginald de Braose was part-Welsh,
>> and through that connection Reginald and Gwladus Ddu were half-fourth
>>cousins of each other.
>>
>>I'm interested in this but I can't find the common ancestor. Can you
>>enlighten me?
>
>Nest ferch Gruffudd ap Llywelyn
>
>Nest -> Nesta -> Sybil -> Bertha -> William -> Reginald de Braose
>Nest -> Llywarch -> Gwladus -> Iorwerth -> Llywelyn -> Gwladus Ddu

The latter descent is extremely suspicious. The earliest source I
know of which makes Nest the mother of Llywarch ap Trahaern is Dwnn's
visitation of Wales (late 16th century), which claims that Nest's
second husband was the mythical Fleance son of Banquo (bogus ancestor
of the Stewarts), giving further reasons for skepticism that go beyond
the late date of the source.

Stewart Baldwin

[Todd A. Farmerie]

"J.C.B.Sharp" wrote:
>
> But then who was the mother of earl Hugh? When talking of Robert of
> Rhuddlan, Orderic calls Hugh 'consobrino suo' (ed.Le Prevost iii 283).
> This relationship if taken literally implies that their mothers were
> sisters. Elsewhere he identifies Robert's mother as a daughter of Robert
> de Grandmesnil. So the wife of Richard Goz may have been another daughter.

Hugh was, of course, a Grandmesnil name.

taf

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Renia wrote:
>
> There is no doubt that Roger de Mortemer was son of Hugh of Coutances.

Well, there certainly is some doubt (we are discussing it after
all). I am somewhat handicapped by not having Stapleton
available, but I can make several comments.

In the primary material, there are two early authors that report
a relationship. Orderic, in refering to Roger de Mortemer, calls
William de Warenne "consangueo ejus". Robert de Torigny thrice
refers to a relationship. In one case he calls William and Roger
brothers, sons of Walter of St. Martin. In a second, he makes
Roger son of William, but as shown by Loyd, this likely resulted
from an error, in which a line of text was accidentally removed
from the statement that Roger was son _of Walter and brother_ of
William. Finally, he refers to Roger and William as sons of a
Gunnorid niece, with Walter as a colateral Gunnorid kinsman.

Two different people have been pointed to as possible
contemporary instances of Roger de Mortemer. First, is a Rogerii
filii Radulfi de Warethna (elsewhere simply Rogerii filii
Rodulfi), who appears in charters dated ca 1040-1045, twice
associated with William, Count of Arques, so a man of some
importance. Loyd examined this man closely, and demonstrated
that he could not be brother of William of Warenne, for reasons
of chronology both involving William and his father Radulf. He
therefor rejected the identification of this man with Roger de
Mortemer (oddly, he doesn't seem to have considered that this
Roger could have been Roger de Mortemer, but that Radulf, his
father, was not the same as Radulf, father of William). The
second is Stapleton's identification of Roger de Mortemer with
the Roger "filius episcopi", son of Bishop Hugh of Countances
(there likewise is a "Radulfus filius episcopi" in contemporary
charters, who Stapleton identified with William's father). Loyd
argues against this identification as follows:

-Roger filius episcopi had a different wife than Roger de
Mortemer, the former named Odain, the latter Hawise.

-Roger filius episcopi had sons William and Hugh, William being
the heir, while Roger de Mortemer's heir was Ralph.

-Roger filius episcopi was apparently dead by 1074, while Roger
de Mortemer was living in 1078.

Based on this Loyd dismisses the identity of Roger de Mortemer
with Roger filius episcopi (this in his CP article), and in the
process is credited with demonstrating that the chronology put
Roger in the generation before William. He adds more in an
article dedicated to the question, where he indicates that
Stapleton was in error regarding the co-heirship - in four cases
Rodulf was sole owner, in one case, what he held he had purchased
from Roger's son, while in the final case there is no indication
of close relationhip, and a known brother of Rodulf is absent,
making it unlikely that brothers were coheirs. Loyd concludes
that there was probably some relationship, but Rodulf de Warenne
and Roger filius episcopi were not brothers.

Keats-Rohan picked up the argument, and made the critical
observation that William de Warenne is specifically called son of
Emma, wife of Rodulf de Warenne, but Beatrice wife of Rodulf last
appears in about 1059, too late for Rodulf to have remarried and
had son William old enough to fight at Hastings. Thus Beatrice
and Emma, wives of Rodulf de Warenne, must have been wives of
successive Rodulfs. Rodulf and Beatrice were linked to
Vascoeuil, and a Beatrice, sister of Gotmund of Vascoeuil made a
grant confirmed by sons Ralph and Roger, and the latter would
seem to match the Rogerii filii Rodulfi de Warethna that Loyd
dismissed based on a brother of William being too young to be
Mortemer. (Gotmund was brother of Richard, Vicomte of Rouen,
whose grandson Helias was attested kinsman of William de
Warenne.) This suggested that Rodulf (I) married Beatrice of
Vascoeuil, having Rodulf (II) de Warenne and Roger de Mortemer,
and Rodulf (II) married Emma, having Rodulf (III) and William de
Warenne.

Partial Bibliography:

T. Stapleton, "Observations in disproval of a pretended marriage
of William de Warren earl of Surrey with a daughter . . . of
William the Conqueror", _Archaeological Journal_ 3:1-12 (1846).

G. H. White, "The Sisters and Nieces of Gunnor, Duchess of
Normandy", _Genealogist_, n.s. 37:57-65, 128-132 (1921).

L. C. Loyd, "The Origin of the Family of Warenne", _Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal_, 31:97-113 (1934).

L. C. Loyd, "A note on the relationship between the families of
Mortimer and Warenne", _Complete Peerage_, ix, App. A, 3-7

E. van Houts, "Robert of Torigny as Genealogist", _Studies in
Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown_, 215-33 (1989).

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, "Aspects of Robert of Torigny's Genealogies
Revisited", _Nottingham Medieval Studies_ 37:21-7 (1993).

taf