Ancestry of Agnes de Condet/Cundy, wife of Walter de Clifford
jim....@nwintl.com
Mostly from a lack of good sources, I could use confirmation of some
of the ancestries I have seen on the internet for Agnes de
Condet/Cundy/Cundi who was wife of Walter de Clifford.
Turton, p. 141, has:
1. Agnes de Cundi m. Walter de Clifford, d. 1223.
2. Roger de Cundi
4. Osbert de Cundi
5. Alice de Cheney
10. William de Cheney, fl. c1086? (hard to read the date)
AR7, line 132d, in a potentially related line, has:
1. Isabel de Condet (or Cundy), liv. 1166, m. Hugh Bardolf
2. Robert de Condet (or Cundy), d. c1141
3. Adeliz (or Alice) le Meschin, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Clare
4. Osbert de Condet (or Cundy), d. by 1130
5. Adelaide de Chesney
6. Ranulph le Meschin, Earl of Chester, d. c1129
7. Lucy of Mercia
10. William de Chesney, lord of Caenby & Glentham
Many people on the internet have sort of combined the two pedigrees,
at least to the extent of having Turton's #2 Roger being a son of
AR7's #2 Robert. Brian Tompsett's Hull data base, for example does
this, except that it doesn't give Robert a first name, only naming
Roger as son of "de Condet" by Alice le Meschin, daughter of Ranulf le
Meschin, Earl of Chester by "Adeliz de Keveliock" (is this a new wife
for Ranulf?). Many others on the internet name the father as Robert,
and state that Roger de Condet is of "Glentham &
Cavenby/Covenby/Coventry". This latter town name could be a reference
to Caenby, which is near Glentham in Lincolnshire, and fits with AR7's
#10. Some on the internet have Roger's wife as Alice de Cheney
(fitting Turton's pedigree into the equation?), while others have
Roger's wife as Basilia, daughter of Alberic de Dammartin & Joan
Basset.
BTW, Burke's Peerage, 1999 edition, p. 783, states that Walter was
married to "Agnes, daughter of Roger de Cuni"; but this may be a
missprint, as previous versions of Burke seem to use "Cundi".
Anyway, the following questions come up in regards to the above:
1. Are Condet, Cundy, and Cundi basically different spellings of the
same name?
2. Does AR7's #5 Adelaide de Chesney replace Turton's Alice de Cheney?
(ie. are we talking about the same people here?)
3. Do the two pedigrees join together as the people on the internet
seem to think?
4. Are Cavenby/Covenby (forget Coventry!) older names for the modern
Caenby?
Thanks to anyone who can help clear up this situation.
Jim Weber
Sutliff
Lincolnshire and Alice de Cheney of Horncastle. There is something also in
Testamenta Vetusta I:45 relating to the children of Walter and Agnes, one of
whom is named Basilia.
HS
<jim....@nwintl.com> wrote in message
news:ff69b8b8.04020...@posting.google.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
No. They are confusing distinct people.
> Anyway, the following questions come up in regards to the above:
>
> 1. Are Condet, Cundy, and Cundi basically different spellings of the
> same name?
Yes.
> 2. Does AR7's #5 Adelaide de Chesney replace Turton's Alice de Cheney?
> (ie. are we talking about the same people here?)
Umm . . .
> 3. Do the two pedigrees join together as the people on the internet
> seem to think?
Keats-Rohan, in DD, explicitly shows Roger, father of Agnes, to
be son of Robert, who married Alice or Adelicia, probably the
widow of Gilbert Fitz Richard de Clare (not R. Fitz G.).
However, she explicitly states that Robert's parentage is unknown.
> 4. Are Cavenby/Covenby (forget Coventry!) older names for the modern
> Caenby?
Not likely, but I guess it is possible. Who knows where some of
these sites get their material.
taf
rosie bevan
The following entries are from Domesday Descendants p.425
de Cundet, Robert
In 1130 Robert de Condé accounted in Kent and in Sussex for an agreement
with the bishop of Lincoln, and in Lincolnshire for the land of his father.
His parentage is unknown, though it is usually suggested that he was a
descendant of Emma Crispin (aunt of Robert I Malet) and Peter de Condé. He
married Alice or Adelicia, probably the daughter of Ranulf I of Chester and
in 1136 widow of Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare (major, Linq. Reg. Antiq. i,
pp. 282ff0. At his death on a 10 October sometime between 1139 and 1145 his
minor son Roger was his heir. Probably father also of a son Robert (q.v.).
His fee was a composite granted some time after 1086, consisting of land in
Wickhambreux, Kent, South Carlton, Grimston, Thurlby and Eagle and
Skellingthorpe, Lincolnshire.
Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, 67-kn, 111-1n
de Cundet, Roger II
Son of Robert de Condé and Alice (of Chester), a minor at his father's death
c.1141. Nephew of Roger de Cundy, clerk of Roger de Mowbray in the 1140s and
1150s. Held 8 knights' fees of the bishop of Lincoln in 1166. Steward of
Roger de Mowbray in 1174 or 1175. Attested Mowbray charters from c.1150/54,
when Robert de Cundet, probably his younger brother, also starts to witness.
He held half a fee, in scattered estates at Axholme, Lincolnshire, Burton
Lazars, Leicestershire, Eltisley, Cambridgeshire, Great and Little Wildon
and Bagby, Yorkshire, from the honour of Mowbray in 1166. Benefactor of
Newburgh (Mowbray Ch., 205, 212). He was dead in 1201, when his heir was his
daughter Agnes, wife of Walter Clifford, ancestor of the earls of
Cumberland. Cf. Major Lincs. Reg. Antiq. i pp.282ff.
Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters (1936), V, nos 160,385; Clay, Early Yorkshire
Charters (1952), IX, nos 115, 125, 146, 153, 167; Clay, Early Yorkshire
Charters (1955), XII, no. 111; Greenway, Charters of the Honour of Mowbray
(1972), no.22, 34, 40, 50, 55, 99, 105, 108, 159, 168, 197, 205, 240, 244,
296, 301, 351, 353, 354, 359, 371, 383, 396, 399; Red Book of the Exchequer,
ed. Hall (1897), pp.418-21.
In the Domesday Book Caenby was referred to as Covenebi. Both Grantham and
Caenby were part of the Bishop of Lincoln's fee at that time.
Cheers
Rosie
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Jim
>
> The following entries are from Domesday Descendants p.425
>
> de Cundet, Robert
> In 1130 Robert de Condé accounted in Kent and in Sussex for an agreement
> with the bishop of Lincoln, and in Lincolnshire for the land of his father.
> His parentage is unknown, though it is usually suggested that he was a
> descendant of Emma Crispin (aunt of Robert I Malet) and Peter de Condé. He
> married Alice or Adelicia, probably the daughter of Ranulf I of Chester and
> in 1136 widow of Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare (major, Linq. Reg. Antiq. i,
> pp. 282ff0.
I've tried to identify this Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare but can't.
Who was he?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
> In message of 5 Feb, rbe...@paradise.net.nz (rosie bevan) wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Jim
>>
>>The following entries are from Domesday Descendants p.425
>>
>>de Cundet, Robert
>>In 1130 Robert de Condé accounted in Kent and in Sussex for an agreement
>>with the bishop of Lincoln, and in Lincolnshire for the land of his father.
>>His parentage is unknown, though it is usually suggested that he was a
>>descendant of Emma Crispin (aunt of Robert I Malet) and Peter de Condé. He
>>married Alice or Adelicia, probably the daughter of Ranulf I of Chester and
>>in 1136 widow of Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare (major, Linq. Reg. Antiq. i,
>>pp. 282ff0.
>
>
> I've tried to identify this Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare but can't.
> Who was he?
The name is a mistake & should read Richard fitz Gilbert.
He was lord of Clare, Tonbridge & Cardigan, killed on 15 April 1136.
Other sources say that his wife Adeliza died in 1128, in which case she
could not have remarried. (I can't recall the evidence for this, or even
if I have seen any.) She was reputedly daughter of Ranulph - called de
Briquessart - viscount of Bayeux & earl of Chester by the Countess Lucy
[see CP VI:498-9].
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
> > In message of 5 Feb, rbe...@paradise.net.nz (rosie bevan) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Dear Jim
> > >
> > >The following entries are from Domesday Descendants p.425
> > >
> > >de Cundet, Robert
> > >In 1130 Robert de Condé accounted in Kent and in Sussex for an
> > >agreement with the bishop of Lincoln, and in Lincolnshire for the
> > >land of his father. His parentage is unknown, though it is usually
> > >suggested that he was a descendant of Emma Crispin (aunt of Robert
> > >I Malet) and Peter de Condé. He married Alice or Adelicia,
> > >probably the daughter of Ranulf I of Chester and in 1136 widow of
> > >Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare (major, Linq. Reg. Antiq. i, pp.
> > >282ff0.
> >
> >
> > I've tried to identify this Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare but can't.
> > Who was he?
>
> The name is a mistake & should read Richard fitz Gilbert.
>
> He was lord of Clare, Tonbridge & Cardigan, killed on 15 April 1136.
Thanks, he is now found. Sounds like another one for Rosie's DD
correction site?
>
> Other sources say that his wife Adeliza died in 1128, in which case
> she could not have remarried. (I can't recall the evidence for this,
> or even if I have seen any.) She was reputedly daughter of Ranulph -
> called de Briquessart - viscount of Bayeux & earl of Chester by the
> Countess Lucy [see CP VI:498-9].
jim....@nwintl.com
In order to avoid confusion as to who I was referring to, CP
III:242-3, in the articles on the "Holders of the Honour of Clare"
lists as the second & third such holders (excerpts from entries
below):
II. 1090? GILBERT FITZRICHARD, styled also DE CLARE and DE TONBRIDGE,
Lord of Clare, &c. m. Adeliz, da. of Hugh, Count of Clermont by
Marguerite, da. of Hilduin, Count of Motdider and Roucy. He d. 1114 or
1117. His widow m. 2ndly, (?Bouchard) de Montmorency.
III. 1117? RICHARD FITZGILBERT, styled also DE CLARE, Lord of Clare,
&c., m. Adeliz, sister of Ranulph "des Gernons", Earl of Chester. He
d. 15 Apr 1136, being slain by the Welsh near Abergavenny. His widow
was rescued from the Welsh by Miles of Gloucester. [Richard's son
Gilbert was 1st Earl of Hertford]
So I think DD is wrong in stating that Alice or Adelicia was married
to Gilbert Fitz Richard de Clare, it was Richard FitzGilbert.
To add to the confusion of Rosie's DD citation (giving Gilbert
FitzRichard instead of Richard FitzGilbert as Adeliz le Meschin's
first husband) the first two generations of line 246b in AR7 are:
24. Adeliza (or Adelaide) de Clermont; m. (1) Gilbert Fitz Richard, b.
bef. 1066, d. 1114 or 1117, Lord of Clare, Suffolk & Tonbridge, Kent,
founder of Priory of Clare, 1090, Lord of Cardigan, 1107-1111, s. of
Richard Fitz Gilbert, Lord of Clare and Tonbridge, by wife Rohese (or
Rose), dau. of Walter Giffard, the elder. She m. (2) Robert de Condet
(or Cundy), d. ca. 1141, lord of Thorngate Castle, co. Lincoln, etc.,
s. of Osbert de Condet.
25. Richard Fitz Gilbert (de Clare), s. & h., Lord of Clare, Suffolk,
slain by Welsh near Abergavenny, 15 Apr 1136, bur. Gloucester; m.
Adeliz (or Alice), dau. of Ranulph le Meschin, Earl of Chester, by
Lucy, wid. (1) of Ivo Taillebois and (2) Roger Fitz Gerold. She m.
(2) Robert de Condet (or Cundy), d. ca. 1141, lord of Thorngate
Castle, Lincoln, etc., s. of Osbert de Condet (see 132d-27).
The latter sentence of generation #24 must be some wierd
editorial/printing error, because it is an exact copy of the latter
sentence of generation #25. I consider #24 to be the error, because
it doesn't agree with AR7's line 132d (which I cited in my prior
post), and CP & other sources say that #24's Adeliza de Clermont
married (2) Bouchard? de Montmorency, not another Robert de Condet.
To expand on AR7's information in line 132d-27, it describes "Robert
de Condet (or Cundy), d. ca 1141, lord of Thorngate Castle in the city
of Lincoln, and of Wickhambreux, Kent, Grimston, co. Nottingham, and
South Carlton, Thurlby, Eagle and Skellingthorpe, co. Lincoln, s.
Osbert de Condet (or Cundy), d. by 1130, lord of Wickhambreux, Kent,
Grimston, co. Nottingham, and South Carlton, Eagle and Skellingthorpe,
co. Lincoln, by Adelaide, dau. & h. William de Chesney, lord of Caenby
and Glentham, co. Lincoln."
So AR7 in lines 132d & 246b seems to be referring to the same Robert
de Cundet/Conde as in Rosie's DD entry; at least the properties of
Wickhambreux , South Carlton, etc., are the same.
If you follow DD, then Robert de Condet/Cundy/Cundet/Conde is father
of Roger, who was father of Agnes, wife of Walter de Clifford. And if
you follow AR7, then Robert has a father Osbert and a mother Adelaide
de Chesney, daughter of William Chesney, lord of Caenby & Glentham.
It then is possible that Roger was of "Cavenby/Covenby" and Glentham,
which might be outdated spellings of "Caenby." The combination of AR7
& DD would indicate that Turton's pedigree has been supplanted. Of
course AR7 is a secondary source, 132d cites CP III:243 & "Thorngate
and the Condet Family", pub. in 'The Registrum Antiquissimum of the
Cathedral Church of Lincoln', Vol I (published 1931, as Publications
of the Lincoln Record Society, vol 27), ed. by C.W. Foster, Appendix
II, pp. 277-295).
BTW, Douglas Richardson prepared AR7's lines 132d & 146b. If he is
following this post, perhaps he could resurrect some of his source
information giving an ancestry for Robert de Condet.
Jim Weber
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<Q%oUb.43222$Wa....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Todd A. Farmerie
> So I think DD is wrong in stating that Alice or Adelicia was married
> to Gilbert Fitz Richard de Clare, it was Richard FitzGilbert.
That looks to be the case.
> To add to the confusion of Rosie's DD citation (giving Gilbert
> FitzRichard instead of Richard FitzGilbert as Adeliz le Meschin's
> first husband) the first two generations of line 246b in AR7 are:
>
> 24. Adeliza (or Adelaide) de Clermont; m. (1) Gilbert Fitz Richard, b.
> bef. 1066, d. 1114 or 1117, Lord of Clare, Suffolk & Tonbridge, Kent,
> founder of Priory of Clare, 1090, Lord of Cardigan, 1107-1111, s. of
> Richard Fitz Gilbert, Lord of Clare and Tonbridge, by wife Rohese (or
> Rose), dau. of Walter Giffard, the elder. She m. (2) Robert de Condet
> (or Cundy), d. ca. 1141, lord of Thorngate Castle, co. Lincoln, etc.,
> s. of Osbert de Condet.
>
> 25. Richard Fitz Gilbert (de Clare), s. & h., Lord of Clare, Suffolk,
> slain by Welsh near Abergavenny, 15 Apr 1136, bur. Gloucester; m.
> Adeliz (or Alice), dau. of Ranulph le Meschin, Earl of Chester, by
> Lucy, wid. (1) of Ivo Taillebois and (2) Roger Fitz Gerold. She m.
> (2) Robert de Condet (or Cundy), d. ca. 1141, lord of Thorngate
> Castle, Lincoln, etc., s. of Osbert de Condet (see 132d-27).
>
> The latter sentence of generation #24 must be some wierd
> editorial/printing error, because it is an exact copy of the latter
> sentence of generation #25. I consider #24 to be the error, because
> it doesn't agree with AR7's line 132d (which I cited in my prior
> post), and CP & other sources say that #24's Adeliza de Clermont
> married (2) Bouchard? de Montmorency, not another Robert de Condet.
Argument 2 is the stronger - you have to be careful comparing internally
within a source that can't get it's story straight.
> To expand on AR7's information in line 132d-27, it describes "Robert
> de Condet (or Cundy), d. ca 1141, lord of Thorngate Castle in the city
> of Lincoln, and of Wickhambreux, Kent, Grimston, co. Nottingham, and
> South Carlton, Thurlby, Eagle and Skellingthorpe, co. Lincoln, s.
> Osbert de Condet (or Cundy), d. by 1130, lord of Wickhambreux, Kent,
> Grimston, co. Nottingham, and South Carlton, Eagle and Skellingthorpe,
> co. Lincoln, by Adelaide, dau. & h. William de Chesney, lord of Caenby
> and Glentham, co. Lincoln."
>
> So AR7 in lines 132d & 246b seems to be referring to the same Robert
> de Cundet/Conde as in Rosie's DD entry; at least the properties of
> Wickhambreux , South Carlton, etc., are the same.
Yes, it apears to be the same Robert.
> If you follow DD, then Robert de Condet/Cundy/Cundet/Conde is father
> of Roger, who was father of Agnes, wife of Walter de Clifford. And if
> you follow AR7, then Robert has a father Osbert and a mother Adelaide
> de Chesney, daughter of William Chesney, lord of Caenby & Glentham.
Be careful here. DD did not just leave the question of Robert's
parentage unaddressed, it explicitly said his parentage is unknown.
This could mean one of two things - either she was no aware of the
evidence which serves as the basis for the attribution made in AR7, or
alternatively, she had definitive evidence that showed it wrong, but
could not find a replacement. It is dangerous to pick this part out of
one source, and that part out of another that directly contradicts the
first - one is likely to end up with a chimera of mutually incompatible
connections.
> It then is possible that Roger was of "Cavenby/Covenby" and Glentham,
> which might be outdated spellings of "Caenby." The combination of AR7
> & DD would indicate that Turton's pedigree has been supplanted. Of
> course AR7 is a secondary source, 132d cites CP III:243 & "Thorngate
> and the Condet Family", pub. in 'The Registrum Antiquissimum of the
> Cathedral Church of Lincoln', Vol I (published 1931, as Publications
> of the Lincoln Record Society, vol 27), ed. by C.W. Foster, Appendix
> II, pp. 277-295).
>
> BTW, Douglas Richardson prepared AR7's lines 132d & 146b. If he is
> following this post, perhaps he could resurrect some of his source
> information giving an ancestry for Robert de Condet.
Yes, perhaps he could.
taf
Patricia Junkin
Would you know where a Bevis de Clare, parson of Fordingbridge in 1280,
might fit in this family?
Thank you.
Pat
----------
>From: jim....@nwintl.com
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: Ancestry of Agnes de Condet/Cundy, wife of Walter de Clifford
>Date: Thu, Feb 5, 2004, 12:22 PM
>
> Dear Rosie, Hap, Todd, Tim, Peter, etc.
>
> In order to avoid confusion as to who I was referring to, CP
> III:242-3, in the articles on the "Holders of the Honour of Clare"
> lists as the second & third such holders (excerpts from entries
> below):
>
> II. 1090? GILBERT FITZRICHARD, styled also DE CLARE and DE TONBRIDGE,
> Lord of Clare, &c. m. Adeliz, da. of Hugh, Count of Clermont by
> Marguerite, da. of Hilduin, Count of Motdider and Roucy. He d. 1114 or
> 1117. His widow m. 2ndly, (?Bouchard) de Montmorency.
>
> III. 1117? RICHARD FITZGILBERT, styled also DE CLARE, Lord of Clare,
> &c., m. Adeliz, sister of Ranulph "des Gernons", Earl of Chester. He
> d. 15 Apr 1136, being slain by the Welsh near Abergavenny. His widow
> was rescued from the Welsh by Miles of Gloucester. [Richard's son
> Gilbert was 1st Earl of Hertford]
>
> So I think DD is wrong in stating that Alice or Adelicia was married
> to Gilbert Fitz Richard de Clare, it was Richard FitzGilbert.
>
> To add to the confusion of Rosie's DD citation (giving Gilbert
> FitzRichard instead of Richard FitzGilbert as Adeliz le Meschin's
> first husband) the first two generations of line 246b in AR7 are:
>
> 24. Adeliza (or Adelaide) de Clermont; m. (1) Gilbert Fitz Richard, b.
> bef. 1066, d. 1114 or 1117, Lord of Clare, Suffolk & Tonbridge, Kent,
> founder of Priory of Clare, 1090, Lord of Cardigan, 1107-1111, s. of
> Richard Fitz Gilbert, Lord of Clare and Tonbridge, by wife Rohese (or
> Rose), dau. of Walter Giffard, the elder. She m. (2) Robert de Condet
> (or Cundy), d. ca. 1141, lord of Thorngate Castle, co. Lincoln, etc.,
> s. of Osbert de Condet.
>
> 25. Richard Fitz Gilbert (de Clare), s. & h., Lord of Clare, Suffolk,
> slain by Welsh near Abergavenny, 15 Apr 1136, bur. Gloucester; m.
> Adeliz (or Alice), dau. of Ranulph le Meschin, Earl of Chester, by
> Lucy, wid. (1) of Ivo Taillebois and (2) Roger Fitz Gerold. She m.
> (2) Robert de Condet (or Cundy), d. ca. 1141, lord of Thorngate
> Castle, Lincoln, etc., s. of Osbert de Condet (see 132d-27).
>
> The latter sentence of generation #24 must be some wierd
> editorial/printing error, because it is an exact copy of the latter
> sentence of generation #25. I consider #24 to be the error, because
> it doesn't agree with AR7's line 132d (which I cited in my prior
> post), and CP & other sources say that #24's Adeliza de Clermont
> married (2) Bouchard? de Montmorency, not another Robert de Condet.
>
> To expand on AR7's information in line 132d-27, it describes "Robert
> de Condet (or Cundy), d. ca 1141, lord of Thorngate Castle in the city
> of Lincoln, and of Wickhambreux, Kent, Grimston, co. Nottingham, and
> South Carlton, Thurlby, Eagle and Skellingthorpe, co. Lincoln, s.
> Osbert de Condet (or Cundy), d. by 1130, lord of Wickhambreux, Kent,
> Grimston, co. Nottingham, and South Carlton, Eagle and Skellingthorpe,
> co. Lincoln, by Adelaide, dau. & h. William de Chesney, lord of Caenby
> and Glentham, co. Lincoln."
>
> So AR7 in lines 132d & 246b seems to be referring to the same Robert
> de Cundet/Conde as in Rosie's DD entry; at least the properties of
> Wickhambreux , South Carlton, etc., are the same.
>
> If you follow DD, then Robert de Condet/Cundy/Cundet/Conde is father
> of Roger, who was father of Agnes, wife of Walter de Clifford. And if
> you follow AR7, then Robert has a father Osbert and a mother Adelaide
> de Chesney, daughter of William Chesney, lord of Caenby & Glentham.
> It then is possible that Roger was of "Cavenby/Covenby" and Glentham,
> which might be outdated spellings of "Caenby." The combination of AR7
> & DD would indicate that Turton's pedigree has been supplanted. Of
> course AR7 is a secondary source, 132d cites CP III:243 & "Thorngate
> and the Condet Family", pub. in 'The Registrum Antiquissimum of the
> Cathedral Church of Lincoln', Vol I (published 1931, as Publications
> of the Lincoln Record Society, vol 27), ed. by C.W. Foster, Appendix
> II, pp. 277-295).
>
> BTW, Douglas Richardson prepared AR7's lines 132d & 146b. If he is
> following this post, perhaps he could resurrect some of his source
> information giving an ancestry for Robert de Condet.
>
jim....@nwintl.com
I think we are in luck, at least I think it is the same Bevis. CP
actually has a note (h) which gives all of Richard de Clare's children
(it doesn't always do so). Here is the text of selected portions of
the Earl's entry in CP, plus note (h):
EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER (V) 1230
RICHARD DE CLARE, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, 1st son and heir,
b. 4 Aug 1222. The custody of his lands and his wardship and marriage
were given to Hubert de Burgh, the Justiciar, on whose fall from power
in July 1232, the King resumed the wardship. In 1243, being of full
age, he did homage and all his lands in the King's hand were ordered
to be surrendered to him. . .
He m. 1stly, Margaret, daughter of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent. She
d. in Nov 1237, her body resting a night at St. Albans on the way to
burial. He m. 2ndly, on or before 25 Jan 1237/8, Maud, daughter of
John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, by Margaret, daughter of Robert de
Quincy. He d. at John de Criol's manor of Ashenfield in Waltham, near
Canterbury, 15 Jul 1262 (h), it being rumoured that he had been
poisoned at the table of Piers of Savoy. On the following Monday, he
was carried to Canterbury, where a mass for the dead was sung and his
bowels were buried before the altar of St. Edward, after which his
body was taken to the canons' church at Tonbridge and interred in the
choir. Thence it was taken to Tewkesbury and buried 28 Jul 1262, with
great solemnity in the presence of two bishops and eight abbots in the
presbytery, at his father's right hand. His widow, who erected a
splendid tomb for him there, had the manor of Clare and the manor and
castle of Usk, for her dower. She was living 1287, but d. before 10
Mar 1288/9. [Complete Peerage V:696-702]
(h) . . . Besides his son and successor in title, Gilbert, the Earl
had two sons: (1) Thomas de Clare, who had a public career and was a
friend of Prince Edward, with whom he went on a Crusade. In July 1257
and later he and his brother Bevis or Benet were allowed oaks from the
forest of Shotover for their fuel at Oxford. Thomas was knighted by
Simon de Montfort before Lewes and in Apr 1265 the castle of St.
Briavel's was given into his charge. He d. in Ireland Feb 1287/8,
leaving a son and heir Thomas, and a son Richard, a clerk. (2) Bevis
or Benet, the Earl's 3rd son, b. 21 July 1248, was a clerk of Oxford,
and received various benfices and preferments from 1259 on. He d.
suddenly in Oct 1294. There was possibly another son, Robert de
Clare, mentioned in 1290 by Bartholomew de Cotton. The Earl left 4
daughters: (1) Isabel, b. May 1240, m. Jun 1257, the Marquess of
Montferrat at Lyons. (2) Margaret, b. 1249, m. 1272, Edmund, Earl of
Cornwall. (3) Roese, b. 17 Oct 1252, m. 1270, Roger de Mowbray.
Roese's date of b. is probably later than 1252, since she was app.
under 15 years of age in 1270. (4) Eglentine, b. 1257, buried at
Tewkesbury, aged 15 weeks. [Complete Peerage, V:700-1 note (h),
corrected by XIV:340]
Note that, according to the website "Some Corrections and Additions to
CP", Volume XIV, removed references to Thomas as son of Richard de
Clare, but that Thomas' identification as Richard's son appears to be
justified by record evidence; therefore the "removal" should itself be
removed.
Hope this helps.
Jim Weber
rosie bevan
Yes, this is another for the DD corrections pages. Sorry I should have
spotted that error myself.
Richard fitz Gilbert de Clare (d. 1136) was the husband of Alice, and the
son of Gilbert fitz Richard. His biography is found on p.398/399. Also
covered in CP III p.243.
Regarding the Chesney connection Roger de Cundi held 9 fees from the Bishop
of Lincoln in 1166, but in 1169 William de Chesney was holding these as ward
of the heir of Roger. Roger had been a benefactor to Eynsham abbey of land
in Milton near Thame [Salter, Eynsham Cartulary v.1 p.113], which perhaps
ties William de Chesney of Glentham and Caenby (also holding of the bishop
of Lincoln), in with the Oxfordshire family of Roger de Chesney and Alice de
Langetot, benefactors to the same religious house. Adding weight to this
suggestion is the fact that Robert de Chesney, son of Roger and Alice, was
bishop of Lincoln between 1148-1166 [DD 833; Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae v.2
p.8], and would have been an active benefactor to his own family.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Ancestry of Agnes de Condet/Cundy, wife of Walter de Clifford
Peter Stewart
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
>>
>> I've tried to identify this Gilbert fitz Richard de Clare but can't.
>> Who was he?
>
>
> The name is a mistake & should read Richard fitz Gilbert.
>
> He was lord of Clare, Tonbridge & Cardigan, killed on 15 April 1136.
>
> Other sources say that his wife Adeliza died in 1128, in which case she
> could not have remarried. (I can't recall the evidence for this, or even
> if I have seen any.) She was reputedly daughter of Ranulph - called de
> Briquessart - viscount of Bayeux & earl of Chester by the Countess Lucy
> [see CP VI:498-9].
It's no loss that I can't remember where this 1128 death of Adeliza came
from, since it is evidently wrong.
According to Ferrer, _Honors and Knights' Fees_ II:182, Adeliza gave a
mill to St Peter's abbey, Gloucester, for the soul of her husband
Richard fitz Gilbert, and this was confirmed by her brother Earl Ranulf
II of Chester.
I don't have access to the cartulary of St Peter's, and I'm not sure
that the original charter of Adeliza survived anyway. But assuming the
gift of the mill was only for the soul of Richard, this was presumably
made soon after his death, or perhaps on an annniversary.
There is most probably better evidence for Adeliza's surviving Richard &
her remarriage than this - I haven't made a search.
Peter Stewart
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart wrote:
> According to Ferrer, _Honors and Knights' Fees_ II:182, Adeliza gave a
> mill to St Peter's abbey, Gloucester, for the soul of her husband
> Richard fitz Gilbert, and this was confirmed by her brother Earl Ranulf
> II of Chester.
>
> I don't have access to the cartulary of St Peter's, and I'm not sure
> that the original charter of Adeliza survived anyway. But assuming the
> gift of the mill was only for the soul of Richard, this was presumably
> made soon after his death, or perhaps on an annniversary.
If needed, the Rolls Series edition of the History and Cartulary of St
Peter's Gloucester is available at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ (numbers for
"Recherche libre" field: N050233-N050235).
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Chris - it's interesting if not exactly providing a complete
answer from the defective copy given in the Rolls Series edition.
There is no sign of Adeliza's original charter, apparently a gift to the
monks in her late husband's memory.
Her brother's confirmation of this is less than ideal proof, because his
name was Ranulf and yet the charter (no. 157 in volume I, pp 240-241)
calls him Roger. The relevant text reads:
"Rogerus comes Cestriae...Confirmo etiam per praesentem hanc cartam
molendinum de Taddeswelle quod dedit eis Aliz soror mea pro anima
Ricardi filii Gileberti viri sui" (Roger earl of Chester...I confirm
also by this charter the mill at Tathwell which my sister Adeliza gave
them [the monks] for the soul of her husband Richard fitz Gilbert).
"Rogerus" may well have been a false restitution of a missing word,
copied later when the earl's correct name was forgotten. The editor
doesn't discuss this as far as I can tell from consulting the online
version (I can't read for long from the screen, so it was a pretty quick
check).
Peter Stewart
John Ravilious
Dear Peter, Chris, et al.,
I hope all is well with you all, across The Pond (and the Bigger
Pond as well).
Looking quickly in on this thread, and the Gallica ref. to the
cartulary of St Peter's, I note there is a bit more support for the
identification of this 'Rogerus' as Ranulf, Earl of Chester. The next
charter on p. 241 (No. CLVIII) is a confirmation by Henry II
("Henricus rex Angliae et dux Normanniae et Aquitanniae et comes
Andegaviae...") of the prior charter, having to do with the gift of
the mill at Olney and that at 'Taddeswell'. This confirmation reads
in part,
" Praecipio quod sine dilatione et juste faciatis habere abbati
et monachis de Gloucestria' quos comes Ranulfus eis dedit
in molendinis de Olneyo et de Taddeswelle, sicut carta
testatur. "
The placement of this confirmation during the reign of Henry II
(1154-1189), and naming the earl of Chester Ranulf as this does, makes
it most likely that Peter is correct - the original charter was from
'R. comes' or 'Radulfus comes', and was transcribed in error (or the
abbreviation rendered 'Rogerus' in error) by the unknown offending
monk.
I hope this is helpful (and Peter, I second your lament re:
eyestrain).
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<Q8LUb.44651$Wa.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Peter Stewart
Thanks, John. On second thoughts, the name "Roger" might actually have
appeard erroneously in the original charter. Anyway, it doesn't seem to
diminish the value of the evidence for Adeliza's relationships.
The writ confirming her memorial gift to St Peter's, Gloucester, was
clearly given some time after 1136. The wording of this is very similar
to another writ of Earl Ranulph granting enough charcoal to run a forge
at Calke priory, dated between 1142 & 1153 (for comparison, both texts
are given below).
It's unlikely that either of these is a near-contemporary forgery, as
the value of each transaction is too small even for monks to bother
faking. More probably the scribe/s had one document in mind or actually
in sight when composing the other, because even though a general formula
is followed these are much more alike than some others of around the
same time.
The interesting point is that a charter was given for Calke at around
the same time (dated 1138-47) by Roger Clinton, bishop of Chester, and
witnessed by Adeliza's two sons, Gilbert, 1st earl of Clare (or
Hertford) and Roger (later the 2nd earl), who is described as the earl's
nephew. Ranulph himself was not a witness, but the presence of the Clare
brothers in Chester perhaps coincided with his confirmation of their
mother's earlier gift.
If all three documents were closely connected, the name Roger might well
have been substituted for Ranulph by an oversight in the one for St Peter's.
The text of this is as follows (from _Historia et cartularium Sancti
Petri Gloucestriae_, edited by WH Hart, Rolls Series, vol I, p 240, no 157):
"Rogerus comes Cestriae, constabulariis suis et dapiferis suis, et
omnibus baronibus suis, Francis et Anglis, et omnibus ministris suis, et
omnibus fidelibus Sanctae Ecclesiae, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse..."
And the writ for Calke (from 'Some Charters of the Earls of Chester',
edited by G Barraclough, _A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton_
(London, 1962), p 33, no 5):
"Ranulfus comes Cestriae conestabulario, dapifero suo, omnibus ministris
suis, omnibus baronibus suis, omnibus hominibus suis, Francis et Anglis,
salutem. Sciatis me dedisse..."
Bishop Roger's charter is printed by Barraclough, as no 4, on pp 32-33.
Adeliza's sons are named as "Gilbertus comes de Clara" and "Rogerus
nepos comitis".
Peter Stewart
nickso...@gmail.com
May I jump in on this and ask if anyone can shed light on Agnes' marriages?
I've been trying to understand two charters in Canterbury cathedral, both undated. One, CCA-DCc-ChAnt/W/59 - https://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/TreeBrowse.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&field=RefNo&key=CCA-DCc-ChAnt%2fW%2f59 - is from William de Clifford and his wife Agnes, who give rents from lands in Wickhambreaux towards lights before the tomb of St Thomas of Canterbury.
The second is from William de Chetnei/Cheney? and his wife Agnes, assigning slightly higher rents from the same land(?), also towards lights before Thomas' tomb. This is CCA-DCc-ChAnt/W/63 - https://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/TreeBrowse.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&field=RefNo&key=CCA-DCc-ChAnt%2fW%2f63.
What I cannot find is any evidence that Agnes remarried after William de Clifford's death in 1223. Her will in Vetusta Testamenta doesn't help much either. Can anyone help?
Many thanks,
Tom
Peter Stewart
> Dear Newsgroup
>
> May I jump in on this and ask if anyone can shed light on Agnes' marriages?
>
> I've been trying to understand two charters in Canterbury cathedral, both undated. One, CCA-DCc-ChAnt/W/59 - https://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/TreeBrowse.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&field=RefNo&key=CCA-DCc-ChAnt%2fW%2f59 - is from William de Clifford and his wife Agnes, who give rents from lands in Wickhambreaux towards lights before the tomb of St Thomas of Canterbury.
>
> The second is from William de Chetnei/Cheney? and his wife Agnes, assigning slightly higher rents from the same land(?), also towards lights before Thomas' tomb. This is CCA-DCc-ChAnt/W/63 - https://archives.canterbury-cathedral.org/CalmView/TreeBrowse.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&field=RefNo&key=CCA-DCc-ChAnt%2fW%2f63.
>
> What I cannot find is any evidence that Agnes remarried after William de Clifford's death in 1223. Her will in Vetusta Testamenta doesn't help much either. Can anyone help?
in 1223 but of Walter de Clifford who was dead by early in 1208 when
Agnes de Condet is referred to as his widow in the pipe roll (10 John).
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
confusion - the trouble comes from the succession of men named Walter as
lords of Clifford. According to the genealogy as given by Eyton, Sanders
and others, there were three Walters, but there must have been four.
The first of them was the father of Henry II's mistress 'the fair
Rosamund', and his wife was named Margaret (often asserted without
sufficient evidence to have been a Tosny). He died ca 1190.
The second was his son Walter II, the husband of Agnes de Condet, and he
was dead by March 1208 when her son, Walter III, had succeeded as lord
of Clifford. Walter III was dead by 23 January 1221 and was succeeded by
his son Walter IV, called 'junior', who lived until 1263. Walter III was
known as 'senior', and Walter IV must also have lived into old age since
he was already an adult by May 1208 shortly after the death of his
grandfather Walter II.
Walter IV married first Catherine, daughter of Walter de Lacy and
Margery de Braiose, by whom he had no offspring, and secondly (or
perhaps thirdly) Margred ferch Llywellyn of Wales who was the mother of
his heiress. Either Walter III or IV also had a wife named Isabel.
Eyton came up with a fanciful theory that Walter II and III were the
same man, who lived until 1221, supposing that an exchequer clerk may
have mistakenly thought Agnes was his widow in 1208 because he was
"intermittently or continuously imbecile during the last few years of
his life". Eyton did not take into account the charter of Agnes de
Condet's son as lord of Clifford that must have been written by March
1208 despite its having been read in court and consequently copied in a
curia regis roll in 1220. Two of the witnesses were Wiliiam de Braiose
and his namesake son - the former fled from England in 1208 after the
latter had been taken into custody by Walter de Lacy in March of that year.
Further complications arise from a record of an Agnes who was the wife
of Walter de Clifford evidently living in October 1216, and from a
Basilia who was granted permission to have firewood collected in a royal
forest in December 1225 when she was described as grandmother to Walter
de Clifford - she was presumed to be the mother of Agnes de Condet, who
had a daughter named Basilia.
However, it appears more likely from the chronology and evidence for the
succession of Walters that both II and III coincidentally had wives
named Agnes, and that oddly one of these had a daughter and the other a
mother named Basilia. It is highly unlikely that Agnes de Condet's
mother could have been living as late as the end of 1225. There is no
reason I can see to place the testament of Agnes later than ca 1196/1208
or to conclude that she outlived her husband Walter II, named as one of
the executors along with a Henry archdeacon of Canterbury (who first
occurs in that capacity in June 1196).
One of the two Walters (II or III) with a wife named Agnes was recorded
in an obituary of Hereford cathedral on 17 January. This was probably
Walter II, the husband of Agnes de Condet, because it would be cutting
things fine if her son Walter III died on 17 January in 1221 since his
son Walter IV had given the king security to take possession of his
inheritance by 23 January in that year.
Peter Stewart