Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Eustace de Baliol (Balliol) parentage ?
494 views
Skip to first unread message
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Jun 5, 2016, 10:34:21 PM6/5/16
to
Dear Newsgroup,
Searching archives of this group, trying to confirm whether the Eustace mentioned above was a son of Bernard II or not, I found one older post (by Alex Maxwell Findlater) stating that Eustace seigneur de Hélincourt was a cousin, not a son of Bernard II (which is in line with the ODNB, 2004), making him a son of a Hugh de Helicourt (d ca. 1181). (BTW, this is also shown in Wikipedia...not the best source for this issues).
My question is, was his father a Baliol or was he a Helicourt married to a Baliol daughter?
The question seems unresolved in many sources, so I am at a loss here. Most sources (secondary ones) ignore this parentage, making Eustace a son of Bernard II.
Has any recent development shed light on this issue?
Your insights, as always, are much appreciated.
Thanks and best regards.
Searching archives of this group, trying to confirm whether the Eustace mentioned above was a son of Bernard II or not, I found one older post (by Alex Maxwell Findlater) stating that Eustace seigneur de Hélincourt was a cousin, not a son of Bernard II (which is in line with the ODNB, 2004), making him a son of a Hugh de Helicourt (d ca. 1181). (BTW, this is also shown in Wikipedia...not the best source for this issues).
My question is, was his father a Baliol or was he a Helicourt married to a Baliol daughter?
The question seems unresolved in many sources, so I am at a loss here. Most sources (secondary ones) ignore this parentage, making Eustace a son of Bernard II.
Has any recent development shed light on this issue?
Your insights, as always, are much appreciated.
Thanks and best regards.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 9, 2016, 4:44:11 PM6/9/16
to
Dear J.L. ~
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question which affects the ancestry on nearly all the newsgroup members.
Hodgson, History of Northumberland 6 (1902): 14–75, esp. 72–73 (chart) claims that Eustace de Baliol [died c.1205] was the son and heir of Bernard de Baliol II [died c.1189–95], of Bywell, Northumberland and Barnard Castle, Durham. Mr. Hodgson was a competent historian but, in this case, he is mistaken.
The following items copied below from the Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue prove that it was Eustace de Hélicourt, seigneur of Hélicourt in Picardy, who was heir c.1189–95 to his cousin, Bernard de Balliol II. In 1189–95 Eustace quitclaimed the manor of Long Newton, Durham to Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham, as well as all the land that Bernard de Balliol held in the vill of Newhouse. In his charter to Bishop Hugh, Eustace specifically refers to Bernard de Balliol as his "lord and kinsman," not his father.
The exact relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and his kinsman, Bernard de Balliol II, is not known.
Eustace de Hélicourt subsequently adopted the surname, de Balliol, which may explain the confusion by Mr. Hodgson and other Balliol historians. This name change is proven by Catalogue of Stowe Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1 (1895): 790, which includes a confirmation charter of Eustace de Balliol to St. Mary’s Abbey dated 1199–1205. The charter was granted with consent of Hugh his son and heir.
For the Stowe Manuscripts book, see the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5I0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA790
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Eustace de Hélicourt (otherwise de Balliol), died c.1200:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Frances Baldwin, Charles Barnes, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Stephen Bull, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Christopher Calthorpe, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Elizabeth Haynes, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane, Nicholas, & Vincent Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Lunsford, Simon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, Margaret Touteville, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Tyndall, Olive Welby, John West, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Weblink: https://www.dur.ac.uk/library/asc/collection_information/catalogues/
Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue, The Cartuarium Vetus and related material, 50v–51r (Date: 1189 x 1195. Confirmation by Richard [I], king of England, to Hugh [du Puiset], bishop of Durham, of the land of Newton handed over by Bernard de Balliol in the royal court for the land of Westwick in dispute between them; and of the rest of that land, land in Newhouse and a mill, similarly handed over by Eustace de Heliscort.), 84v–85r (Date: 1189 x 1195. Quit-claim by Eustace de Heliscort to Hugh [du Puiset], bishop of Durham, of the manor of [Long] Newton, Durham and of all land that Bernard de Balliol held in the vill of Newhouse, save that held by himself, and a mill, to be held with the Bishop’s other land in Newton acquired from Eustace’s lord and kinsman, Bernard de Balliol, by final concord in King Richard [I]'s court; in return for 250 marks owed by Eustace on Bernard’s account since the Bishop cleared Bernard at King Richard’s exchequer for his debt to Aaron the Jew and recovered his charters held by Aaron, and for 100 marks owed by Eustace on his own account for the Bishop’s restoration to him of Barnard Castle and his inheritance.).
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question which affects the ancestry on nearly all the newsgroup members.
Hodgson, History of Northumberland 6 (1902): 14–75, esp. 72–73 (chart) claims that Eustace de Baliol [died c.1205] was the son and heir of Bernard de Baliol II [died c.1189–95], of Bywell, Northumberland and Barnard Castle, Durham. Mr. Hodgson was a competent historian but, in this case, he is mistaken.
The following items copied below from the Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue prove that it was Eustace de Hélicourt, seigneur of Hélicourt in Picardy, who was heir c.1189–95 to his cousin, Bernard de Balliol II. In 1189–95 Eustace quitclaimed the manor of Long Newton, Durham to Hugh du Puiset, Bishop of Durham, as well as all the land that Bernard de Balliol held in the vill of Newhouse. In his charter to Bishop Hugh, Eustace specifically refers to Bernard de Balliol as his "lord and kinsman," not his father.
The exact relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and his kinsman, Bernard de Balliol II, is not known.
Eustace de Hélicourt subsequently adopted the surname, de Balliol, which may explain the confusion by Mr. Hodgson and other Balliol historians. This name change is proven by Catalogue of Stowe Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1 (1895): 790, which includes a confirmation charter of Eustace de Balliol to St. Mary’s Abbey dated 1199–1205. The charter was granted with consent of Hugh his son and heir.
For the Stowe Manuscripts book, see the following weblink:
https://books.google.com/books?id=5I0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA790
For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Eustace de Hélicourt (otherwise de Balliol), died c.1200:
Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Frances Baldwin, Charles Barnes, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William Bernard, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Elizabeth Bosvile, George, Giles & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Stephen Bull, Nathaniel Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Christopher Calthorpe, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, William Clopton, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Henry Fleete, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Elizabeth Haynes, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund, Edward, Richard & Matthew Kempe, Mary Launce, Henry, Jane, Nicholas, & Vincent Lowe, Gabriel, Roger & Sarah Ludlow, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Lunsford, Simon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry & William Randolph, George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Rose Stoughton, Margaret Touteville, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Tyndall, Olive Welby, John West, Hawte Wyatt.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Weblink: https://www.dur.ac.uk/library/asc/collection_information/catalogues/
Durham University Library Special Collections Catalogue, The Cartuarium Vetus and related material, 50v–51r (Date: 1189 x 1195. Confirmation by Richard [I], king of England, to Hugh [du Puiset], bishop of Durham, of the land of Newton handed over by Bernard de Balliol in the royal court for the land of Westwick in dispute between them; and of the rest of that land, land in Newhouse and a mill, similarly handed over by Eustace de Heliscort.), 84v–85r (Date: 1189 x 1195. Quit-claim by Eustace de Heliscort to Hugh [du Puiset], bishop of Durham, of the manor of [Long] Newton, Durham and of all land that Bernard de Balliol held in the vill of Newhouse, save that held by himself, and a mill, to be held with the Bishop’s other land in Newton acquired from Eustace’s lord and kinsman, Bernard de Balliol, by final concord in King Richard [I]'s court; in return for 250 marks owed by Eustace on Bernard’s account since the Bishop cleared Bernard at King Richard’s exchequer for his debt to Aaron the Jew and recovered his charters held by Aaron, and for 100 marks owed by Eustace on his own account for the Bishop’s restoration to him of Barnard Castle and his inheritance.).
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Jun 10, 2016, 6:02:19 PM6/10/16
to
I've found that the most recent studies about this family are those of Geoffrey Stell, mainly:
a) "The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-1292." Essays on the
Nobility of Medieval Scotland. Edited by K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), 150-65. And
b) "In Search of the Balliols: 2. France." Balliol College Record (1999), 11-5.
I don't have access to these works. But, according the PhD Thesis by Amanda G. Beam (of which I have a copy) "The Political Ambitions and Influences of the Balliol Dynasty, c. 1210 - 1364", University of Stirling, Department of History, 2005; a table published on page 33, following the above mentioned source in a) (quoted as page 153 from that source) shows Eustace de Hélicourt as a son of Hugues de Bailleul, seigneur de Hélicourt (+ ca. 1181), a younger brother to Bernard I, who had inherited the French Lordships, which seem to have been quite extensive. King John Balliol, after being deposed, lived in these possessions.
So, whatever the relationship between Eustace and Bernard II, it's clear that the French fiefs, which were centered around Bailleul-en-Vimeu, where the family had its origins, belonged to one or, maybe two, very close related families (or two branches of the same family). What is striking, though, is that if Eustace had been in fact a first cousin to Bernard II, he would have used a different term rather than "kinsman." However, I don't know for sure how precise the terminology would have been by that time.
Thanks again,
JL
Peter Stewart
Jun 10, 2016, 9:24:51 PM6/10/16
to
On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:02:19 AM UTC+10, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:44:11 PM UTC-3, Douglas Richardson wrote:
<snip>
> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:44:11 PM UTC-3, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> > The exact relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and his kinsman,
> > Bernard de Balliol II, is not known.
> Thank you very much for your thorough answer.
>
> I've found that the most recent studies about this family are those of
> Geoffrey Stell, mainly:
> a) "The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-1292." Essays on the
> Nobility of Medieval Scotland. Edited by K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), > 150-65. And
> b) "In Search of the Balliols: 2. France." Balliol College Record (1999), > 11-5.
I haven't seen the second of these, but in the first Stell appears to have relied for the relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and Bernard de Balliol on GA Moriarty's 'The Baliols in Picardy, England and Scotland', *NEHGR* 106 (1952), which he described as "not witrhout errors".
>
> I've found that the most recent studies about this family are those of
> Geoffrey Stell, mainly:
> a) "The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-1292." Essays on the
> Nobility of Medieval Scotland. Edited by K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), > 150-65. And
> b) "In Search of the Balliols: 2. France." Balliol College Record (1999), > 11-5.
<snip>
> So, whatever the relationship between Eustace and Bernard II, it's clear
> that the French fiefs, which were centered around Bailleul-en-Vimeu,
> where the family had its origins, belonged to one or, maybe two, very
> close related families (or two branches of the same family).
Peter Stewart
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Jun 11, 2016, 2:01:14 AM6/11/16
to
So, for now (and maybe forever, unless some new contemporary records prove otherwise), I cut the ancestry of Eustace, starting the Anglo-Scottish line to King John, not showing his relationship with Bernard II.
Cheers,
JL
0 new messages