Wife of Sir Robert de Roos, of Wark, Northumberland
Douglas Richardson
Sometime ago, Linda Jack posted a record pertaining to the marriage of
Mary Longespée, a hitherto unnoticed daughter of William Longespée,
Earl of Salisbury (illegitimate son of King Henry II of England). A
copy of Linda's good message is copied below. In her post, Linda Jack
cited a record which mentions Mary Longespée's marriage c. 1226/7, but
the name of Mary Longespée's husband is unknown.
I haven't encountered any further reference to Mary Longespée in my
research. However, it seems entirely possible to me that Mary
Longespée was the unknown wife of Sir Robert de Roos (died 1267/69),
of Wark, Northumberland. Among other things, I note that Sir Robert de
Roos had a daughter, Ida de Roos, wife successively of Roger Bertram
(living 1272), Robert de Neville (died 1282), and John Fitz Marmaduke.
The name, Ida, is a well known given name which runs in the Longespée
family. Its occurence among the children of Sir Robert de Roos is
certainly a good clue to the identity of his wife. The given name,
Mary, also appears among Sir Robert de Roos' Merlay grandchildren,
which evidence is also suggestive, as the name Mary was a bit rare in
this time period among high born families.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 119, footnote g (sub Ros) indicates that
Sir Robert de Roos had Wark, Northumberland settled on him and his
heirs by a lawful wife by his father in 1225-1226, which grant was
confirmed by King Henry III 15 August 1227. The settlement of Wark was
possibly made in anticipation of Sir Robert de Roos' marriage. If so,
it would seems that Sir Robert de Roos married about the same time as
did Mary Longespée.
One caveat. Linda Jack states that Mary Longespée married in 1226-7,
but elsewhere she says the record she cites is from 11 John. 11 John
would be 1210-11, not 1226-7. Perhaps Linda Jack can explain this
discrepancy for us.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF LINDA JACK'S EARLIER POST
Linda Jack <linda_j...@earthlink.net>
I think that I have run across another daughter of William Longespee, a
daughter Mary, who was apparently married in 1226-1227. The source is
Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi, vol II, 1844, Thos
Hardy, ed. , p. 200. The item reads something to the effect of "The
baliffs of John de Monem in the New Forest are ordered to give Ela
Countess of Salisbury one deer in their baliwick as a gift of the Lord
King at the marriage of Mary the daughter of William former earl of
Salisbury." I can't reproduce the correct marks, but the Latin is an
approximation of " D' damo dato. Mand' est Ballis Jonis de Monem de
Nova Foresta qd hre fac Ele Comitsse Sarr j. damu i balla sua de dono
dui R. ad. nuptias Marie fil W. q nda Com Sarr. T. ut s." If anyone
has the original at hand, a check on the translation would be
appreciated.
The entry is for the 11th year of John's reign which I understand to
have begun on October 28,1226 so this would have been after
Longespee's
death, yet it seems odd that a daughter, Mary, has not surfaced
before. Has anyone seen her before? Any possible husbands at the
time
of this marriage? I am working from a photocopy I made some time ago,
so I don't have the source at hand to see if there are any other
records
around the same time that may shed some light on Mary.
Thanks for any suggestions, Linda
al...@mindspring.com
6. Linda Jack
Jan 24 2003, 12:44 pm show options
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: linda_j...@earthlink.net (Linda Jack) - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:43:26 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Fri, Jan 24 2003 12:43 pm
Subject: Mary, daughter of the earl of Salisbury
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Dear Adrian, Ann & Chris,
Thanks for pointing out that is was indeed Henry III not John who was
king in 1226. A hazard of posting too late at night. Linda
al...@mindspring.com
excellent deductions, perhaps some proof can be found!
Doug Smith
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated.
As for proof, under normal circunstances, if Mary Longespée was indeed
the wife of Sir Robert de Roos of Wark, we would expect to find other
evidence of the Roos and Longespée families being associated in
contemporary records.
The first such record that I've found so far is the statement in
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 122 which reveals that Robert de Roos III
"appears to have done service in Wales under the Earl of Lincoln" in
1295. The Earl of Lincoln in 1295, of course, was Henry de Lacy, whose
wife was Margaret Longespée, the great-niece of Mary Longespée. So
we have a definite match with this record.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
ADRIANC...@aol.com
was probably sister not daughter of Ela, although that would require a
correction to CP Vol XI, p 379. Note that Wm Longespee was only earl in right of
his wife. I know that where William is the subject of a deed etc., he has
been refered to Earl of Salisbury, but when the subject is his assumed issue, I
would have expected the reference to the earldom of Salisbury would be to her
mother, unless the reference is to Ela's father William who carried the
title in his own right.
Adrian
In a message dated 27/12/2005 00:15:33 GMT Standard Time,
royala...@msn.com writes:
Douglas Richardson wrote;
>>>>
Dear Newsgroup ~
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Douglas Richardson
The record dated 11 Henry III (1226/7) that Linda Jack kindly posted to
the newsgroup SPECIFICALLY refers to marriage ["nuptias"] of "Mary
daughter of William formerly Earl of Salisbury." Inasmuch as William
Longespée, Earl of Salisbury, husband of Countess Ela, died in the
previous regnal year on 7 March 1225/6, the record in question which
Linda posted clearly refers to William Longespée as Mary's father.
Mary Longespée was presumably named for her father's oldest legitimate
sister, Mary le Bigod.
I might note that in or before the previous year (10 Henry III, i.e.,
1225/6), William Longespee's daughter, Isabel, married a Northern
baron, William de Vescy, of Alnwick. William de Vescy was a first
cousin to Sir Robert de Roos (died 1267/9), of Wark, Northumberland.
Thus, a subsequent intermarriage between the Longespée and Roos
families would make perfect sense.
DR
Douglas Richardson
For interest's sake, I've listed below the numerous 17th Century New
World immigrants who descend from Sir Robert de Roos (died 1267/9), of
Wark, Northumberland, which individual I've tentatively proposed as the
husband of Mary Longespée, daughter of Sir William Longespée (died
1226), Earl of Salisbury.
1. Robert Abell.
2. William Asfordby.
3. William Bladen.
4. Thomas Booth.
5. Joseph Bolles.
6. Obadiah Bruen.
7. Stephen Bull.
8. Charles Calvert.
9. Edward Carleton.
10. Kenelm Cheseldine.
11. Grace Chetwode.
12. Henry Corbin.
13. William Farrer.
14. Muriel Gurdon.
15. Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe.
16. Anne & Katherine Marbury.
17. Philip & Thomas Nelson.
18. Thomas Owsley.
19. Richard Saltonstall.
20. Diana & Grey Skipwith.
21. Mary Johanna Somerset.
22. William Wentworth.
John Ravilious informs me that the immigrants, Robert Peyton and John
and Elizabeth Harleston, also have conjectured descents from Sir Robert
de Roos, through the Sothill and Salvain families.
If anyone knows of any immigrants who are missing from the above list,
please let me know here on the newsgroup.
Chris Phillips
<<
Among other things, I note that Sir Robert de
Roos had a daughter, Ida de Roos, wife successively of Roger Bertram
(living 1272), Robert de Neville (died 1282), and John Fitz Marmaduke.
>>
Is there anything to indicate that the wife who survived Roger Bertram, and
went on to marry two further husbands, was the same wife to whom he was
married by 1241?
If not, then it hasn't been established that Sir Robert de Ros had a
daughter named Ida.
Chris Phillips
ADRIANC...@aol.com
Douglas Richardson wrote:
<<
Among other things, I note that Sir Robert de
Roos had a daughter, Ida de Roos, wife successively of Roger Bertram
(living 1272), Robert de Neville (died 1282), and John Fitz Marmaduke.
>>
Chris Phillips wrote
>>>
Is there anything to indicate that the wife who survived Roger Bertram, and
went on to marry two further husbands, was the same wife to whom he was
married by 1241?
If not, then it hasn't been established that Sir Robert de Ros had a
daughter named Ida.
<<<
If I follow this correctly (and not withstanding my previous query to Doug's
construction, his answer was not convincing), then Doug's construction would
lead to the following:
The Sir Robert de Ros who died ?1269 and of Wark on Tweed m1 Mary Longespee
and m2 Christine d of Robert Bertram and sister and (in her issue coh) of
Roger Bertram. This Roger Bertram wife being Ida dau of Sir Robert de Ros
(-?1269) by his m1 Mary Longespee.
Is this what Doug is implying (I'm not saying that this is not possible)?
BTW there seems to be a divergence between CP Vol II p 162 and CP Vol XI p
120; The first states that Christine m1 NN de Penulbury (leaving Elias de P),
m2 Sir Robert de Ros of Wark, who d in 1275, but Vol XI p 120 states she m
the Robert de Ros who died in c1269, also Vol XI has Christine m1 Sir Robert de
Ros and m2 Robert de Penbury. From sub-note h p 120 Vol XI is more likely to
be correct.
Adrian
Chris Phillips
> If I follow this correctly (and not withstanding my previous query to
Doug's
> construction, his answer was not convincing), then Doug's construction
would
> lead to the following:
>
> The Sir Robert de Ros who died ?1269 and of Wark on Tweed m1 Mary
Longespee
> and m2 Christine d of Robert Bertram and sister and (in her issue coh) of
> Roger Bertram. This Roger Bertram wife being Ida dau of Sir Robert de
Ros
> (-?1269) by his m1 Mary Longespee.
>
> Is this what Doug is implying (I'm not saying that this is not possible)?
Doug is arguing that it was Sir Robert de Ros's elder son William who
married Christine Bertram, so Sir Robert's second marriage would be deleted.
Christine's father was also named Roger, and the younger Roger married a
daughter of Sir Robert de Ros at the same time as Sir Robert's son William
married a sister of Roger junior.
What I'm asking is if there is any evidence that this daughter of Sir Robert
de Ros was the same wife Ida who survived Roger Bertram junior. If not, the
onomastic indication that Sir Robert's may have been married to a Longespee
would be lost.
Chris Phillips
Jwc...@aol.com
I thought that Douglas meant that the
first Sir Robert Roos of Wark, 2nd son of Sir Robert Roos of Hamlake and Isabel of
the Scots is the one who presumedly married Mary Longespee, daughter of
William Longespee, 1st Earl of Salisbury of that line by Ela, Countess / heiress of
the previous Earls of Salisbury and that Christiana Bertram was married to
that Robert of Wark`s eldest son William rather than to his younger brother
Robert who married a unknown Margaret.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
The...@aol.com
Dear Doug, Adrian, Chris, Doug, et al.,
Many thanks to all for an interesting series of posts, and
bringing what appears to be another interesting descent (and
issues re: same) to light. I am still in the process of
digesting same, but wanted to add the following for
consideration.
The following chart does not deal with certain issues (e.g.,
the order of marriage of Christian Bertram to de Penbury and
William de Ros of Downham - or for that matter, if William de
Ros’ son and heir William was a son of Christian Bertram [this
would make the Ros marriage her 2nd]). However, it does work
with the following:
1. Ela of Salisbury, born ca. 1187 and m. (young) before
8 Sept 1197, could have had a daughter - Mary - born
say 1205/1212.
2. Mary Longespee, conjectured daughter of William
Longespee and Ela, if born in that range, could have
married Sir Robert de Ros say 1219/1225, and had an
eldest daughter (probably Isabel, future wife of Sir
Roger de Merlay and Sir Adam de Everingham) born say
1220/1226.
3. Isabel de Ros, marrying 1st to Sir Roger de Merlay,
had her eldest daughter Mary de Merlay sometime before
10 Jan 1241/42 (she was aged 24 ‘and more’ at her
father’s IPM, 10 Jan 1265/66). Assuming Mary was born
during 1241, Isabel de Ros was possibly aged between
15 and 21 at the time (and more likely in the middle
of this range).
[NOTE: the following chart is conjectural and for
discussion purposes only. Conjectured links are
shown: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]
William ‘Longespee’ = Ela of
E of Salisbury I Salisbury
m. bef 8 Sept 1197 I b. ca. 1187
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I______________
I III
Mary = Sir Robert de <siblings> Roger de = Agnes
I Ros, of Wark Bertram I
i d. ca. 1269 of Mitford I
I ____________________I
___I__________________________ I __________________________
I I _____I_______ I I
I I I I I I
Isabel Ida = 1) Roger Christian = William Sir Robert
= 1) ca. I Bertram Bertram de Ros de Ros
I 1241 I bef 3 May of Downham of Wark
I Roger de I 1252 (eldest son = Margaret
I Merlay I - disinherited) de Brus
I Agnes I
I Bertram I
I (dsp) __I
I___________ I
________I________________________ ________I___
I I I I I
Mary Isabella Alice Robert William
de Merlay de Merlay de Merlay de Ros de Ros
b. bef b. bef 4 b. bef 4 of Wark of
4 Dec Dec 1255 Dec 1257 (and Sanquhar, Kendal
1241 = 1) Robert = Robert Nithsdale)
= 1) Walter de Eure de = Laura
de Bolebec 2) Robert de Thweng (de Baliol ?)
2) William Somerville
de Greystoke
It appears that the younger son of Sir Robert de Ros and Mary
Longespee, 'Robert de Ros, junior', was one of the sureties for
William de Kyme in a complaint by William Bardolf in 1253 [Murphy,
Yorkshire Feet of Fines: Pleas of the Crown 31-32]. He would
presumably have been born before 1233, assuming he was ‘of age’
went acting as a surety: This would work well with an elder
sister - Isabel - being born say 1220/1226.
One additional if important item: I would be remiss if I did
not note that Mary de Merlay, eldest daughter of Isabel de Ros,
was likely named after a grandparent. As her paternal grandmother
was Ada of Fife, this lends further support to Sir Robert de Ros’
wife being named Mary.
Cheers, and Happy New Year to all.
John *
Chris Phillips
> The following chart does not deal with certain issues (e.g.,
> the order of marriage of Christian Bertram to de Penbury and
> William de Ros of Downham - or for that matter, if William de
> Ros' son and heir William was a son of Christian Bertram [this
> would make the Ros marriage her 2nd]).
I think it's clear that the Ros marriage must come first, as Christine and
her husband Robert de Penbury appear in connection with the Ros manor of
Mindrum, in which she presumably had a dower interest.
Also, I don't know of any record of descendants of William de Ros surviving
after Ellis de Penbury is named as her heir, so there is probably no
difficulty with William being Christine's son.
But it does concern me a bit if we go too far in speculating about the
possibility of Robert's wife being a Longespee without any evidence that
there is even an onomastic argument in its favour.
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I'm proposing that Sir Robert de Roos (died 1267/69) of Wark,
Northumberland [2nd son of Sir Robert Roos of Helmsley and Isabel of
Scotland] married c. 1226/7 Mary Longespee, daughter of William
Longespee (died 1226), Earl of Salisbury. This marriage produced at
least four children, Isabel (wife of Roger de Merlay), William (of
Mindrum), Robert (of Wark), and Ida (wife of Roger Bertram, Robert de
Neville, and John Fitz Marmaduke).
The proposed marriage of Sir Robert de Roos and Mary Longespee appears
to have taken place right after Sir Robert de Roos obtained Wark Castle
from his father. Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 119, footnote g (sub
Ros) states that the conveyance of Wark Castle took place in 1225-6,
but gives no documentation for that statement. The charter which
conveyed Wark Castle, however, makes it clear that it was done sometime
after Sir Robert's father founded a hospital for lepers at Bolton,
Northumberland. The foundation of Bolton hospital is usually dated to
1225 (see, for example,
http://homepage.mac.com/philipdavis/English%20sites/2612.html).
Fortunately, the foundation charter for Bolton Hospital is available in
William Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum, 6 Pt. 2 (1830): 693, which
source may be viewed online at www.monasticmatrix.com. Judging from
the long list of witnesses, I can confirm that the charter for Bolton
Hospital dates sometime between 1223 and 1 May 1226 (the latter date
being the death date of Richard de Marsh, Bishop of Durham, one of the
witnesses). Elsewhere, I find that the gift of Wark Castle to Sir
Robert de Roos by his father was confirmed by King Henry III on 15
August 1227 [Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1 (1895): 56].
Thus, it would appear that Wark Castle was settled on Sir Robert de
Roos sometime between 1223 and 15 August 1227. If the usual date of
the foundation of Bolton Hospital is correct, namely 1225, then the
settlement of Wark Castle can be narrowed down to sometime between 1225
and 15 August 1227. This date corresponds nicely with the known
marriage date (1226/7) of Mary Longespee, which date was kindly
supplied by Linda Jack in her earlier post on Mary Longespee.
Those interested in learning more about the history of Wark Castle may
wish to visit the following weblinks:
http://homepage.mac.com/philipdavis/English%20sites/2455.html
http://www.coldstream-scotland.co.uk/history_wark_castle.html
http://www.keystothepast.info/durhamcc/K2P.nsf/K2PDetail?readform&PRN=N688
http://www.pastperfect.org.uk/sites/wark/index.html
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< This marriage produced at
least four children, Isabel (wife of Roger de Merlay), William (of
Mindrum), Robert (of Wark), and Ida (wife of Roger Bertram, Robert de
Neville, and John Fitz Marmaduke). >>
I propose a slight alteration on this. That Mary was a second wife and that
only Ida was a child of this marriage.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< first Sir Robert Roos of Wark, 2nd son of Sir Robert Roos of Hamlake and
Isabel of
the Scots is the one who presumedly married Mary Longespee, daughter of
William Longespee, 1st Earl of Salisbury of that line by Ela, Countess /
heiress of
the previous Earls of Salisbury and that Christiana Bertram was married to
that Robert of Wark`s eldest son William rather than to his younger brother
Robert who married a unknown Margaret. >>
The given names of Robert's children "William", "Robert" and "Isabel" can all
be extracted simply, from Robert's own ancestry. However the name "Ida"
cannot.
Robert de Ros, second son of Robert de Ros d 1227, was a "Justice of the
King's Bench" in 1230. However his father Robert d 1227 was aged 13 in 1185. And
the son Robert was a "younger son". That rather narrows the possible age
range of the son. I would propose 1193/1200 which allows him to be 23 to 35 when
he obtained Wark and 30 to 38 when he was a Justice. However this gives us a
rather-aged marriage age of 26 to 35 when he marries Mary Longespee who
herself cannot have been older than 30 and possibly as young as 1, but otherwise I
don't believe we have any data points to set her age.
Therefore I'm proposing that this match was a second marriage for Robert de
Ros, which means there is still a first marriage, which identification *may* be
tied to identifying the various properties each of his grandchildren held..
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< But it does concern me a bit if we go too far in speculating about the
possibility of Robert's wife being a Longespee without any evidence that
there is even an onomastic argument in its favour. >>
To address this I would point out that Ida de Ros married Roger Bertram, who
has been assigned as a daughter to this Robert, has a nice onomastic fit to
her now-proposed great-grandmother Ida de Toeni
From onomastic crtieria I'm now leaning toward the possibility of a slight
alteration in my second-marriage theory, that wouldl throw Isabel de Ros into
the camp as a daughter to Mary Longespee as well. That is, that Isabel names a
daughter Mary (de Merlay) who married Walter Bolebec.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
It appears that Sir Robert de Roos arranged for the marriages of his
eldest three children, a son and two daughters, in or about 1241, as
all three marriages are mentioned in the 1241 forest plea as having
just taken place. Isabel, who appears to be the older daughter,
produced a child within the year. Assuming that Isabel was aged 14
when she gave birth to her first child (common in that time period),
then it would place her birth at about 1227/8. If so, then Isabel de
Roos could easily be the child of Mary Longespee who we know married
sometime in 1226/7.
In this time period, it was only necessary for a child to be age 7 to
give legal consent to a marriage. Thus, we can be sure that the three
Roos children married in 1241 were all at least age 7. Beyond that, it
is impossible to say what the ages of the three children were. Without
further information, my guess would be that Isabel was the eldest
child, born c. 1227/8, followed by William, the eldest son, and then
Ida. I presume Ida was the youngest of the three, as she survived
until at least 1320.
Regarding Ida's advanced age in 1320, I should mention that her 2nd
husband, Sir Robert de Neville, had possession of at least part of his
father's lands by 1243 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 495,
footnote c]. Thus he was born in or before 1222. If Ida was aged 9 at
her first marriage in 1241, it would place her birth at c. 1232, which
would make her about 10 years younger than her second husband. This is
certainly acceptable. This means, however, that Ida was about 88 years
old in 1320.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< It appears that Sir Robert de Roos arranged for the marriages of his
eldest three children, a son and two daughters, in or about 1241, as
all three marriages are mentioned in the 1241 forest plea as having
just taken place. >>
I'm only seeing two marriages in that forest plea you posted. His "son and
heir" and then also "a daughter".
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
For now, I'm satisfied that rank, chronology, and naming patterns are
agreeable to the proposed marriage of Robert de Roos and Mary
Longespee. So far, so good. However, additional evidence is still
needed to prove the marriage.
As you noted, I'm especially encouraged by the fact that Isabel de
Roos, wife of Roger de Merlay, named her eldest daughter, Mary. That's
particularly helpful I think.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
The marriage of all three Roos children are mentioned in the 1241
forest plea, which I've copied again below. The transcript below is in
English, and is taken from the book, Northumberland Pleas from the
Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle upon
Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:). In the first section, the marriage
of Sir Roger de Merlay to a daughter of Sir Robert de Roos is
mentioned. In the second section, it is stated that Sir Robert de Roos
and Sir Roger Bertram had arranged for the marriages of their
respective eldest sons to marry each other's daughters, which marriages
had occured. For interest's sake, I should mention that a Latin
transcript of this same text can be found in Curia Regis Rolls, 16
(1979): 282-286.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Date: Octaves of St. Hilary, 1241:
"To his worshipful lord Henry, by the grace of God king of England,
lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou,
[his servant] Thomas of Straton, health and due reverence with
obedience. At another time we made known by letter to you .... that
Sir Robert de Ros had taken in your hand the pleas of herbage, hambling
of dogs and dead wood which belonge to the foresters, where you have no
demesne wood ....
Be it remembered that Sir Roger de Merlay who now is (and others) were
attached by precept of the king and of Sir B. de Lisle, justice of the
forest, for trespass of the forest: whom the foresters saw with bows
and arrows, contrary to the assize of the forest ...
Also there were seen, contrary to the assize of the forest, Richard de
St. Peter, Richard de Duddene (and others), men of Sir Roger de Merlay;
and they were attached for a hind taken at Ladelleie and carried away,
as was presented by the foresters. From all these the king did not
obtain his justice, save only 10 marks whereby Roger de Merlay made
fine secretly, as is said, for himself and for his men aforesaid; and
this by favour of marriage between the said Roger and the daughter of
Robert de Ros already mentioned." [Reference: Northumberland Pleas from
the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle
upon Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:): 122-123].
"Also Sir Roger Bertram's men did chase in Chivele in the king's forest
and take a hind and a fawn buck, after the eyre of the justics of the
forest ... They are still to be attached, and, if they were not
attached, they and three hounds of Sir Roger Bertram were taken by the
foresters and by several men of those parts ... Nor, by reason of such
conspiracy and such releases have the foresters been able to do their
office and the king's advantage; and this because the marriages were
pre-arranged, and have now been made, between the son and heir of Sir
Roger [Bertram] and a daughter of Sir Robert [de Ros] on the one part,
and on the other between the son and heir of Sir Robert [de Ros] and a
daughter of Sir Roger [Bertram]." [Reference: Northumberland Pleas from
the Curia Regis and Assize Rolls, 1198-1272 (Pubs. of the Newcastle
upon Tyne Records Committee 2) (1922:)125].
- Hide quoted text -
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< The marriage of all three Roos children are mentioned in the 1241
forest plea, which I've copied again below. >>
You're right... I skimmed it too fast.
Thanks for being patient :)
Will Johnson
Chris Phillips
> To address this I would point out that Ida de Ros married Roger Bertram,
who
> has been assigned as a daughter to this Robert, has a nice onomastic fit
to
> her now-proposed great-grandmother Ida de Toeni
But what I'm concerned about is that there is apparently no evidence that
the daughter of Robert de Ros who was married to Roger Bertram by 1241 is
the same person as the wife Ida who survived him, and lived until the early
1320s.
This identification is unproved - and certainly not a safe assumption to
make without some evidence - so the proposed marriage of Robert de Ros to
Mary Longespee is really a conjecture based on onomastics which themselves
rely on another conjecture. If proof can be found for either conjecture,
fair enough ...
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
<<
One caveat. Linda Jack states that Mary Longespée married in 1226-7,
but elsewhere she says the record she cites is from 11 John. 11 John
would be 1210-11, not 1226-7. Perhaps Linda Jack can explain this
discrepancy for us.
>>
Actually, Linda did kindly provide a more precise date than the one she
posted for the order concerning Mary's marriage. The order was dated 8
September 1227. See:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/p_salisbury.shtml#p381b
So Mary's marriage apparently took place a year or two later than the
settlement of Wark on Robert de Ros and his heirs by a lawful wife, which
you mentioned in your previous message.
Chris Phillips
fairt...@breathe.com
I have a query about Isabel daughter of David Earl of Huntingdon who married
Robert de Brus
SP vol II p 430 says that she was born about 1206
but also that her son Robert the Bruce was born in 1210
the two events look rather close together
cheers
Simon
Claud...@aol.com
I have no exact dates but can cite that on 9 August 1248 Robert de Brus
confirmed the donation of the whole messuage of Cragyn, made by his mother
Isabella, to Lindores Abbey. He was certainly born bef. 1227 as he was an adult
when the above charter was confirmed.
Best regards,
MichaelAnne
fairt...@breathe.com
SP also says Robert married Isobel de Clare in or before 1240 which is
consistent with your date
cheers
Simon
WJho...@aol.com
Can you tell us if SP or CP or both repeat this statement?
Thanks
WIll Johnson
fairt...@breathe.com
Hi Will
SP II p430 (under Carrick)
Isabel 2nd daughter of David Earl of Huntingdon
. . .
she b 1206 d ca 1251
CP VI page 647 footnote (l)
David Earl of Huntingdon had 3 sons and 3 daughters
. . .
(1) Margaret m Alan, Lord of Galloway
(2) Isabel m Robert Brus, Lord of Annandale
(3) Ada m Henry de Hastings
but under Hastings CP VI page 345
Ada is described as the 4th daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon
cheers
Simon
linda...@earthlink.net
I will not have access to my library for another week or so, but see
in the ITER database that there are four articles in Notes and Queries
(Oxford) that may possibly be on topic. These years do not appear to
be available online, but please advise if anyone knows of a source for
them. Othwerwise I will look these up in the printed volumes when I am
able. Best wishes to all for a Happy New Year. Linda
Personal Author: E., D. C., Mary, daughter of Wm. de Roos [article] p.
495 in
Notes and queries, Series 4, vol. 12, alt. no. 312, (1873)
Personal Author: E., D. C., Ralph de Cobham: Mary de Roos [article] in
Notes and queries, Series 5, vol. 2, alt. no. 28, (1874)
Personal Author: Elwes, D. C., Ralph de Cobham: Mary de Roos [article],
p. 236-237 in Notes and queries, Series 5, vol. 2, alt. no. 38,
(1874)
Personal Author: A., E. H., William de Roos, of Yolton [article], p.
307 in Notes and queries, Series 5, vol. 9, alt. no. 225, (1878).
maryca...@gmail.com
Joe
What is the line from John Rowe to Robert de Ros?
I assume it depends on John Rowe, immigrant to Gloucester, Massachusetts being identical with John Rowe, son of John Rowe of Lamerton and aged 13 in the 1620 Visitations of Devon. The question would be, what is the evidence that these two John Rowe's are the same person? My brief look into this suggests the first John Rowe was in Gloucester by 1651 and the second was still living in England when his father's will was probated in 1653.