Geoffrey FitzPiers' Mother

[D. Spencer Hines]

We have heard one report that Maud de Mandeville is not Geoffrey FitzPiers'
[circa 1162 --- 14 Oct 1213] Mother. We have heard another report that she
was his Mother.

Who was his Mother?

Cheers,

D. Spencer Hines

Exitus acta probat
--

D. Spencer Hines --- Parentibus Caris Pius Filius

[GURI ADEMI]

"We have heard one report that Maud de Mandeville is not
Geoffrey FitzPiers' [circa 1162 --- 14 Oct 1213] Mother. We
have heard another report that she was his Mother."

Sanders' analysis of the honour of Pleshy, Essex includes
the following information:

Geoffrey (II) de Mandeville (cr. E. Essex in 1140)(d. 1144)
had a sister Beatrice m. William de Say (d. 1144) who had
two sons William (II) and Geoffrey. Although the honour of
Pleshy passed to her younger son Geoffrey for a short time
the rights of Beatrice de Say, daughter and coheir of William
(II) to Pleshy were recognized in 1190.

Beatrice de Say (d. 1197) m. Geoffrey fitz Peter (Piers) (cr. E
Essex in 1199)(d. 1213). Their children were Geoffrey (de
Mandeville)(d.s.p. 1216), William (de Mandeville)(d.s.p.
1227), Henry (to whom John gave the Deanery of
Wolverhampton in 1205)( and Maud m. Henry de Bohun, E.
Hereford (d. 1220). The honour of Pleshy remained with the
de Bohuns thereafter.

It would appear, therefore, that Geoffrey fitz Peter, although a
significant personage in his own right, being Justiciar at
Richard II's death, his only connection to the de Mandevilles
was through his wife, Beatrice, the granddaughter of the
sister of Geoffrey de Mandeville, the ill-famed first E. Essex.

Guri Ademi

[Todd A. Farmerie]

The mother of Geoffrey Fitz Piers was Maud, wife of Piers de
Lutegareshale. As far as I have been able to determine, there was never
any Maud de Mandeville at this point in the Mandeville pedigree until
someone misread CP. I followed back the references cited by
Weis/Sheppard Magna Carta Sureties (later repeated in AR7) and they all
either say nothing of the sort, or else lead right to the CP Essex
article. Nowhere in the text does it mention a Maud other than simply
as wife of Piers, and there it does not call her Maud de Mandeville nor
provide any evidence of a connection. In the associated chart, (and
here's the rub) Piers, Maud, and her second husband are placed under the
horizontal line which unites the children of Geoffrey de Mandeville.
This would, at first glance, appear to show Maud as Geoffrey's daughter
(this applies to Maud, but not Piers or his successor, because Maud is
not given a surname). However, a closer look reveals that there is no
vertical line dropping down from the horizontal to connect her with
Geoffrey:

Geoffrey
de Mandeville
|
--------------------------------------------
||| |||
children Piers=Maud=2 hus more children
of Geoffrey de L | | of Geoffrey
| |

Maud was not intended by this to be represented as Geoffrey's daughter,
but this appears to be the genesis of this mistaken affiliation. As has
been pointed out, it is clear that Geoffrey Fitz Piers came to hold
Mandeville land, as well as the Earldom of Essex, through his wife, who
was granddaughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville's sister. This is best seen
by the fact that the land and titles descended to Bohun, to the
exclusion of Geoffrey's son and male heir, John Fitz Geoffrey, son by a
second wife. So, no Mandeville land can be shown to have been held by
Piers, or by Geoffrey prior to his marriage; no Mandeville land
descended to Geoffrey's (and hence Maud's) heir male; no document has
been brought forward which claims Maud, wife of Piers, was a Mandeville;
no daughter or sister of an Earl of Essex would have been allowed to
marry such a lowly knight as Piers. No, Maud was not a Mandeville.

taf

If anyone knows of a claim that Maud, wife of Piers was daughter of
Geoffrey de Mandeville that predates the publishing of this chart, I
would love to see it, but I am not holding my breath.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Vide infra.

D. Spencer Hines
--

D. Spencer Hines --- Parentibus Caris Pius Filius

Todd A. Farmerie wrote in message <353FC3...@po.cwru.edu>...

>GURI ADEMI wrote:

No, Hines wrote the paragraph immediately below:

He's correct. I checked it myself in CP today. Gentle readers should look
*sub nomine* "Essex". The Chart is between pages 116 and 117 in Volume V
[Five].

>
>
> Geoffrey
> de Mandeville
> |
> --------------------------------------------
> ||| |||
> children Piers=Maud=2 hus more children
> of Geoffrey de L | | of Geoffrey
> | |
>
>Maud was not intended by this to be represented as Geoffrey's daughter,
>but this appears to be the genesis of this mistaken affiliation. As has
>been pointed out, it is clear that Geoffrey Fitz Piers came to hold
>Mandeville land, as well as the Earldom of Essex, through his wife, who
>was granddaughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville's sister. This is best seen
>by the fact that the land and titles descended to Bohun, to the
>exclusion of Geoffrey's son and male heir, John Fitz Geoffrey, son by a
>second wife. So, no Mandeville land can be shown to have been held by
>Piers, or by Geoffrey prior to his marriage; no Mandeville land
>descended to Geoffrey's (and hence Maud's) heir male; no document has
>been brought forward which claims Maud, wife of Piers, was a Mandeville;
>no daughter or sister of an Earl of Essex would have been allowed to
>marry such a lowly knight as Piers. No, Maud was not a Mandeville.
>
>taf
>
>If anyone knows of a claim that Maud, wife of Piers was daughter of
>Geoffrey de Mandeville that predates the publishing of this chart, I
>would love to see it, but I am not holding my breath.

D. Spencer Hines

Exitus acta probat