HUGH LUPUS, Earl of Chester
John Michael O`Melia
Looking for info on Hugh LUPUS. Was he the first Earl of Chester ?
What relationship did he have with Richard de VERNON, Baron of
Shipbrook. Where does Osmer de BOSTOCK fit into this picture of events
?
I think the time frame is around 950 to 1080 AD give or take a few.
Looking forward to your comments. Take care and best wishes.
John Michael O`Melia
13j...@BellSouth.net
StNeel
Hugh D'Avranches 'Lupus' was Earl of Chester, 1072-1102 when he died. His son
and heir, Richard, died White Ship disaster 1120. Hugh was cousin to Nigel St
Sauveur, Constable of Chester and both were cousins to the Vernon family but
just how I'm not sure. One manor of Nigel's family was transferred to Vernon's
before 1066 in Normandy prob by marrage.
Hugh held Chester 'by the sword' hence was not under Wm the Conquorer. See
Domesday book etc. Hugh's Illegite son Robert de Malpas married a dau of
William FitzNigel son of Nigel above.
Todd A. Farmerie
StNeel wrote:
>
> Hugh D'Avranches 'Lupus' was Earl of Chester, 1072-1102 when he died. His son
> and heir, Richard, died White Ship disaster 1120. Hugh was cousin to Nigel St
> Sauveur, Constable of Chester and both were cousins to the Vernon family but
> just how I'm not sure. One manor of Nigel's family was transferred to Vernon's
> before 1066 in Normandy prob by marrage.
Keets-Rohan has speculated that an early Vernon married a daughter of St
Sauveur, I think in her recent TAG article. Is there any (scholarly)
account of St. Sauveur from this century?
> Hugh held Chester 'by the sword' hence was not under Wm the Conquorer. See
> Domesday book etc. Hugh's Illegite son Robert de Malpas married a dau of
> William FitzNigel son of Nigel above.
What is the source for making Robert de Malpas bastard of Hugh? How
solid is the identification of William Fitz Nigel as scion of the St.
Sauveur family? Nigel had two sons named William, and I have seen three
different Williams assigned to him.
taf
Cristopher Nash
Todd A Farmerie wrote:
>StNeel wrote:
>>
>> Hugh D'Avranches 'Lupus' was Earl of Chester, 1072-1102 when he died.
>>His son
>> and heir, Richard, died White Ship disaster 1120. Hugh was cousin to
>>Nigel St
>> Sauveur, Constable of Chester and both were cousins to the Vernon family but
>> just how I'm not sure. One manor of Nigel's family was transferred to
>>Vernon's
>> before 1066 in Normandy prob by marrage.
>
>Keets-Rohan has speculated that an early Vernon married a daughter of St
>Sauveur, I think in her recent TAG article. Is there any (scholarly)
>account of St. Sauveur from this century?
Dick Statham <StN...@aol.com > suggests:
>Nigel IV Lord of S Saviour, 1st Baron Halton, Constable of Chester, and Lord
of Salop at Hasting ob 1072-3 Bat of Cardiff m Adela dau William de Vernon
(had 10 kids including Nigel V S Savior, Vicount of Cotentine, heir to Fr
lands and William FitzNigel, Baron Halton, heir to most English lands.<
He cites:
>'The Descent of the Family of Statham' by the Rev. S.P.H. Statham, London,
>Times Book Co. Ltd., 42 Wigmore St. W.1, 1925<
- and offers:
>Rev Statham's Ref's; 'Le Cotentin et ses Isles', Gustave Dupont 1870;
'Calendar of Documents Preserved in France', J.H. Round; 'Conspiration des
Barons contre Guillaume-le-Batard', M. Le Cointe, Caen 1868; 'Histoire du
Chateau etc. de S Sauveur-le-Vicomte',Delisle; 'Historie des Isles de la
Manche', E. Pegot-Ogier, Paris, 1881; 'Conqueror and his Companions', J.R.
Planche, 1874; 'Gallia Christiana'; Dugdale's 'Monasticon' 1655. Also several
deeds and charters e.g. Mount St Michael records, grant in St Stephens in
Caen, (Walburg? can't find it right off) Monastery in Chester and several
others.
Richard B. Statham's Ref's-#939 & #940-Viscount of Cotentine & also Coutance.
'Chronicle of William of Malmesbury', Giles, AMC Press 1968; 'Roman du Rue',
Wace; 'Chronicle of the Normand Conquest', E. Taylor, 1837; 'Descent of the
Family of Statham' Rev Statham, 1925; 'Faliase Roll', Crispin, 1939,
'Ordericus Vitalas' Ecc History of England' Bohn, 1853, reprint Gen. Pub Co.
1968; 'Domesday Book'.<
You may share some of my anxiety (various grounds).
>> Hugh held Chester 'by the sword' hence was not under Wm the Conquorer. See
>> Domesday book etc. Hugh's Illegite son Robert de Malpas married a dau of
>> William FitzNigel son of Nigel above.
>...How solid is the identification of William Fitz Nigel as scion of the St.
>Sauveur family? Nigel had two sons named William, and I have seen three
>different Williams assigned to him.
>
>taf
Yes - that's the question I've been asking. Can anyone help? Dick -- any
chance of more precise documentary details?
Cris
StNeel
Sorry folks, I'm fresh out of birth certificates for 11th century people. As to
the required 'modern scholarly' citations of this century, I always thought
contemporary sources were best (or as close as you could get) -brush up on your
ancient french,
Apparently, the documents at St Sauveur were burned during the Fr Rev in 1798
including a 930 AD charter- so a village 'historian' wrote in c1830 what he
remembered about the papers he looked at as a young man. Without him, we would
not know anything of many things. It is the best we got in some areas.
O yes, for the .edu folks- the Rev Statham was 'Late Scholar of Queen's
College, Cambridge' and member of the Historical Society of France ( and I seem
to remember "Member of the Soc de Ant. de Normandie'). O well what do I say?
Let keep the fun in it.
StNeel
Todd A. Farmerie
StNeel wrote:
>
> Sorry folks, I'm fresh out of birth certificates for 11th century people. As to
> the required 'modern scholarly' citations of this century, I always thought
> contemporary sources were best (or as close as you could get) -brush up on your
> ancient french,
Contemporary is best, but it doesn't follow that "as close as you can
get" is second best. Most 16th to 19th century genealogical work
dealing with the time period in question is much inferior to what has
been done in this century. (I know, it's a generalization, but there it
is . . . .) IThat doesn't mean that modern material is always to be
trusted, but the "industry standard" has improved dramatically from the
days of the Burkes and Garcias Carrafa.
taf
Reedpcgen
In following up on Todd's comments, even the greatest of English and Welsh
genealogists of the past have put together what are now known to be completely
false connections. This includes Dugdale (who one modern writer calls that
great fraud, as he 'stole' most of his work from his contemporary and associate
Roger Dodsworth), etc. Where their works do prove valuable is when they gave
testimony of things they knew of first hand, or documents that no longer
survive. Those who worked in the past did not hold to the stringent standards
we now promote and expect. Try recalling specifics from documents you went
through some years ago and see if you don't confound something. And lastly,
the fun is in the hunt, and in finding or solving something that has eluded
others or remained hidden for centuries. In my opinion it is not in promoting
lines on shakey ground lacking specific evidence. If such a line is later
proved false, it causes great consternation to many who reveled in the
connectit brought--true feelings of loss. So again, the best tactic is to be
careful and know what the limitations are, even when trying to be helpful. We
don't mean to be critical, but supportive of methods that will bring lasting
success for all involved (including those who follow).
pcr
StNeel
Ref to careful scholarship - I agree. I feel that all should be supported by
some reasonable documentation but also if the situation fits.
I was asked about Robert de Malpas being the illegt son of Hugh E of Chester.
Not looking up the docs (which I have somewhere in bits and pieces) let look at
this.
Hugh died 1102 and Richard, his only son and heir, became E of Chester until
1120. That makes him 35+ or so hence when Richard died in the White Ship
disaster (well docunmented).
He was prob a chaprone to the 'drunken teen age party' given by King Henry I
only son and heir. All drowned. The Earldom passed to Ranulf le Meschin. Who
is he? He is Ranulf de Brisasard (le M is a nickname) who belongs to the
Brisasard family, the viscounts of the Bessin. Now Hugh was a d'Avranches who
were VC of d'Avranches. So far so good- powerful interrelated Normand families
etc. (Richard 'may' have had kids but prob not - marcher lords tended not to be
3 yrs old etc. More research etc)
But who is Robert, Lord of Malpas castle outside Chester (not down by Cardiff).
Hugh had Malpas then next Robert. Hmmm. Robt was 'a mightly warrior' and Hugh
was a party man. Robt married an odd daughter of the St Sauveurs, who came from
VCs of the Cotentin. Nice. My thinking Hugh gave Robt, a good but illegit son
who could fight, a 'living' on a border castle to perserve Chester boundries
and he was a 'good catch' even for the odd St Sav daughter. The next owner of
Malpas is Gilbert de Malpas, a younger br to the St Sav heir. Seems all to fit
rather well. Hence the 'trail' of Malpas moving from Hugh to Gilbert de Malpas
thru Robt.
By the way Richard and Robt are confused in several 'modern' books. One time it
is Rich then next its Robt. I was puzzeling this when I found one researcher
(an .edu type) who then corroborated my 'guess' and said Robt was illegit son
etc -but didn't give specific source of his statement. O well!
IF you want certainly in genealogy, ask Grandmother - all else is the fun of
the chase.
StNeel
Reedpcgen
I think a problem is that though Domesday says Robert, lord of Malpas, was son
of Hugh, it does not tell us which Hugh this refers to. It would seem odd that
in no where does it say son of the Earl, or son of Earl Hugh. We know that
Robert of Rhuddlan was Earl Hugh's cousin, and had been a squire to Edward the
Confessor, by whom he was knighted. At the death of his son his lands reverted
to the Earl.
You will find Hugh to be a VERY common name, even among the Cheshire Domesday
tenants. So even though we know Earl Hugh "the Wolf" was thought of as a
sexual pervert by some churchmen, claiming that he had an illegitimate son who
became Robert, lord of Malpas, without anything tying the two together, is a
bit outside the bounds of "reasonable research" in my opinion. That Robert may
have married a daughter of St. Sauveurs might explain why he was among Earl
Hugh's men. Hugh was set up on a border area, late Mercia, to hold the region
by force against agressors afterthe failure of the weak Gherbod, the first Earl
of Chester. So anyone holding under Hugh (there was no Royal domain in the
county, so all held of Hugh, not of the King), ought to be a good and loyal
soldier. And as to the relationship and ancestry of Ranulph Le Meschin/de
Briquessart, who succeeded Earl Hugh's son, his mother was Margaret, sister of
Hugh d'Avranches, thus being by blood cousin and heir to Earl Hugh's son
Richard.
So looking at the surviving records and evidence (Domesday and early charters),
I see no reason to say that Robert Fitz Hugh of Malpas was illegitimate son of
Earl Hugh. Why not Hugh Delamere or Hugh Fitz Osbern, who also held in
Cheshire at Domesday? It is very dangerous to begin speculating on
relationships during this period based only on connecting very common names.
pcr
StNeel
Good - a lively discussion. I think John O'melia who asked who was Hugh Lupus
is getting more than he perhaps wanted but it fun anyway.
Yes I agree - Lots of Hugh's etc. Very few holding Chester 'by the sword'. Yes
I know church guys said he was pervert - they said that about a lot of barons,
kings etc who they didn't like - seemed sort of an early yellow jounalism.
Cross the local church and the scribe said the baron was a bad man in print.
They said the same about Wm Rufus etc. I seem to remember it was a death
sentence to be a pervert under Norman law and Willy I was strait laced for the
times. But thats another topic.
Richard II (there was a Richard I d'Avranches at Hastings 1066 appearently), E
of Chester 1102-1120 was the ONLY son and heir (White ship -well documented
etc). He also was Lord of Malpas (for awhile at least). Robt of Rhuddlan is
another story - son died, land reverted to E of Chester you say. OK - Richard &
Robt line dead - who got Malpas? Not the new Earl Ranulph le Meschine (thanks
for the info - I didn't know the Margaret connect). A Robert FitzHugh (or de
Malpas) dau married a not-heir St Sauveur and their son was Gilbert de Malpas.
Now it is real easy to confuse all the Roberts and Richards and IF only the
Domesday book is the source I would tend to agree. (Actually there are a bunch
of Nigels there also but only one NIGEL (NO LAST NAME) which I susect is Nigel
St Sav - help here anyone? I got interupted in that research so to be
continued) However, there were later people involved and we should track them
e.g. Gilbert de Malpas etc. to get full story on which I have data but got to
cut off somehwere.
Please see 'Invasion 1066' by Rupert Furneaux, 1966; 'William of Malmesbury'
Chronicles, Giles reprint, 1968 and 'Castles' by Charles Oman, 1978 to help you
sort all this out.
It is an interesting problem which I am fairly sure of since the timeline,
family lines and titles fit pretty good. But, as I said before- that far back
anything is possible if the 'assumption' is based on one source or the church
scribe is lying that there was a Robert de Malpas etc. However, he shows up
several places and seems real. The question remains - how did Malpas go from
the E of Chester line to the St Sauveur line? Robert FitzHugh de Malpas seems
about right.
I'm not sure of the relevance of Hugh Delamere or Hugh FitzOsbern to the
discussion. But - lets discuss, I may learn something new pertaining to my
interests in Malpas. (anyone know why Earl William FitzWilliam in Burke's is
the present Baron Malpas?)
Todd A. Farmerie
en...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
> Dick Statham <StN...@aol.com > suggests:
>
> >Nigel IV Lord of S Saviour, 1st Baron Halton, Constable of Chester, and Lord
> of Salop at Hasting ob 1072-3 Bat of Cardiff m Adela dau William de Vernon
I looked up the Keets-Rohan article (in the Fall 1997 TAG) and she
states that Nigel (who she calls II) married the sister of Richard,
Baldwin and William de Vernon. The name of their father is unknown.
taf
StNeel
Nigel IV ob 1072-3 m Adela dau of William de Vernon was the statment and was
based from the Rev Statham's book. From here is to be added by the Rev Statham;
"His wife Adela was a daughter of William de Vernon by his wife Emma, daughter
of William FitzOsborn, Earl of Hereford and Lord of the Isle of Wright. It will
be seen that Nigel's son, Richard held some position in that family. As Nehou
passed about this time into the possession of the Vernon's (Ref Histore des
Eveques de Coutances, M. Lecanu, Coutance 1839) it is just possible that
Adela's brother William had married a daughter of Nigel III, receiving with her
in free marriage this important fief".
So it seems to ck with Keets-Rohan as quoted by above by Todd. Nehou is a
little village next to St-Sauveur-le-Vicomte inland fron the Normandy beaches
of 1944 fame. But you need a good map. Nehou is the original 'Neel's House' for
that family,
StNeel
Todd A. Farmerie
StNeel wrote:
>
> Nigel IV ob 1072-3 m Adela dau of William de Vernon was the statment and was
> based from the Rev Statham's book. From here is to be added by the Rev Statham;
>
> "His wife Adela was a daughter of William de Vernon by his wife Emma, daughter
> of William FitzOsborn, Earl of Hereford and Lord of the Isle of Wright. It will
> be seen that Nigel's son, Richard held some position in that family. As Nehou
> passed about this time into the possession of the Vernon's (Ref Histore des
> Eveques de Coutances, M. Lecanu, Coutance 1839) it is just possible that
> Adela's brother William had married a daughter of Nigel III, receiving with her
> in free marriage this important fief".
>
> So it seems to ck with Keets-Rohan as quoted by above by Todd.
Except that naming the father of the Vernons as William questionable (he
appears to have been father of their brother Hugh, but there is reason
to suspect that they were only uterine half-brothers, the sons of a
different father). That their mother was Emma was (if I recall
correctly) shown by CP, but this has since been shown to be wrong. That
she was daughter of William Fitz Osborn is both extremely problematic,
chronologically speaking, and at odds with Torigny. Fortunately, it
would seem the St-S family will be described, at least in outline, in an
upcomong publication of K-R's Medieval Prosopography Group.
taf
StNeel
The point is well taken in so far that I should have quoted Todd
(<ta...@po.cwru.edu>) to the fact he didn't know the father of the Vernons as he
discussed. I stated the father was William and Todd expands on that, but
appearently honest doubt exists here between sources and/or analysis.
There is several things that would be helpful. Todd cites 'CP' is in error
when it stated the mother was Emma. Q?. Is CP the' Dugdale Mon. Angl CP' quoted
by Todd in the' Wm F.Nigel Constable of Chester' discussion elesewhere in this
newgroup? I agree that Dugdale is not 100% reliable but he is very useful and
gives leads to follow. For example (IF I am read Todd right) he said
> There is a very detailed account in one of
>the charters rendered in Dugdale's Mon. Angl. CP >erroneously (3:165) states
"William Fitz-Niel, BaronofHalton, Hereditary Constable and Marshal, whose
>descendants took the name of De Lacy and became Earls of >Lincoln in 1232."
It was Agnes who was the FitzNigel >heiress, and as second wife of Eustace
Fitz.
But I believe Dugdale is right in this example. Wm FN's descent did become Lacy
etc. But the daddy is Richard FN not the Wm FN who was daddy of Richard etc.For
me to sort out norman names requires care, tracking land & titles- and a bit of
luck. Too many Fitz this or de (manor) that.
Now as to the Vernon's, Todd States;
>Except that naming the father of the Vernons as William questionable (he
>appears to have been father of their brother Hugh, but there is reason
>to suspect that they were only uterine half-brothers, the sons of a
>different father). That their mother was Emma was (if I recall
>correctly) shown by CP, but this has since been shown to be wrong. That
>she was daughter of William Fitz Osborn is both extremely problematic,
>chronologically speaking, and at odds with Torigny. Fortunately, it
>would seem the St-S family will be described, at least in outline, in an
>upcomong publication of K-R's Medieval Prosopography Group.
I will defer to others in most cases on the Vernon's since I only follow them
as pertaining to St Sauv.'s. Thanks for the data to ponder. I would appreciate
clarification on sources. Is the CP given here in this discussion the same as
Dugdale ref above? Also who showed this to in error? But these are small points
and everyone has to 'find & flavor' the data and come to their own conclusions.
More importantly, who is Keets-Rohan and where is the 'Fall TAG'? This seems
interesting in that K-R's Medieval Prosopography Group is to review the St-S
family. I would love to see that. Can I and others obtain these results? I must
confess my ignorance - what is a Prosography group?
Todd - I must admit I am enjoying the lively discussion and keep up the good
work.
StNeel
Todd A. Farmerie
StNeel wrote:
>
> There is several things that would be helpful. Todd cites 'CP' is in error
> when it stated the mother was Emma. Q?. Is CP the' Dugdale Mon. Angl CP' quoted
> by Todd
Wasn't me. pcr perhaps?
> in the' Wm F.Nigel Constable of Chester' discussion elesewhere in this
> newgroup? I agree that Dugdale is not 100% reliable but he is very useful and
> gives leads to follow.
No, not Dugdale. CP is a common abbreviation for the (New) Complete
Peerage, by G.E.C. (Cokayne).
> For example (IF I am read Todd right) he said
>
> > There is a very detailed account in one of
> >the charters rendered in Dugdale's Mon. Angl. CP >erroneously (3:165) states
> "William Fitz-Niel, BaronofHalton, Hereditary Constable and Marshal, whose
> >descendants took the name of De Lacy and became Earls of >Lincoln in 1232."
> It was Agnes who was the FitzNigel >heiress, and as second wife of Eustace
> Fitz.
This wasn't me, but I think what is being stated is that the charters
are being rendered in Dugdale's Mon. Angl., while CP (the same one I am
talking about now) erroneously states . . . . Unfortunately, CP does
contain a few errors, but is a much better source than Dugdale.
>
> But I believe Dugdale is right in this example. Wm FN's descent did become Lacy
> etc. But the daddy is Richard FN not the Wm FN who was daddy of Richard etc.For
> me to sort out norman names requires care, tracking land & titles- and a bit of
> luck. Too many Fitz this or de (manor) that.
I don't think there is a Richard FN. There is a Richard FE, who married
Agnes FW (dau William FN). As I see it, CP is only wrong here if one
assumes a male line is implied, which may not be the case.
> Now as to the Vernon's, Todd States;
>
> >Except that naming the father of the Vernons as William questionable (he
> >appears to have been father of their brother Hugh, but there is reason
> >to suspect that they were only uterine half-brothers, the sons of a
> >different father). That their mother was Emma was (if I recall
> >correctly) shown by CP, but this has since been shown to be wrong. That
> >she was daughter of William Fitz Osborn is both extremely problematic,
> >chronologically speaking, and at odds with Torigny. Fortunately, it
> >would seem the St-S family will be described, at least in outline, in an
> >upcomong publication of K-R's Medieval Prosopography Group.
>
> I will defer to others in most cases on the Vernon's since I only follow them
> as pertaining to St Sauv.'s. Thanks for the data to ponder. I would appreciate
> clarification on sources. Is the CP given here in this discussion the same as
> Dugdale ref above? Also who showed this to in error? But these are small points
> and everyone has to 'find & flavor' the data and come to their own conclusions.
CP is the same Complete Peerage. The early Vernons were discussed in
detail by K-R, and I summarized some of this material in a post to the
group on Robert de Torigny and the family of Gunnor, Duchess of
Normandy. (This is the post I put on the test web page as an example.)
> More importantly, who is Keets-Rohan and where is the 'Fall TAG'?
K.S.B. Keats-Rohan heads the Unit for Prosopographical Research at
Linacre College, Oxford. Their URL is:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/HOME.STM
She has published numerous articles on various families of Norman
England, Normandy, Maine, and Brittany.
TAG is The American Genealogist. For their 75th Anniversary, they
issued a combined Fall issue (I forget the months) which included an
article by K-R on the ancestry of Poppa, wife of Rollo. This included a
brief introduction discussing the application of onomastics to
genealogy, and specifically mentioned some of the marriages of the St.-S
family, while alluding to a forthcoming article.
> This seems
> interesting in that K-R's Medieval Prosopography Group is to review the St-S
> family. I would love to see that. Can I and others obtain these results? I must
> confess my ignorance - what is a Prosography group?
See their web page under "Occasional Publications". Regarding the issue
of interest: "Onomastique et Parenté dans l'Occident médiéval: I, edd.
Keats-Rohan and Settipani will be available sometime early next year."
I have seen her refer to an article in this publication in several
recent works of hers. It would appear to focus on the descent of a
specific female name originating in the Rorgonid Counts of Maine, and
passing into numerous later families, including St-S. It dousn't focus
specifically on the family, but should provide nuch useful information.
The list of their planned publications suggests we have a lot of
interesting material to look forward to. While you are there, also take
a look at the available issues of their newsletter, Prosopon.
taf
StNeel
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Neel-de-St-Sauveur/FitzNigel (was Re: HUGH LUPUS,
>Earl of Chester)
>From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
>Date: Wed, Jun 24, 1998 00:19 EDT
>Message-id: <35907E...@po.cwru.edu>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>StNeel wrote:
>>
>> Nigel IV ob 1072-3 m Adela dau of William de Vernon was the statment and
>was
>> based from the Rev Statham's book. From here is to be added by the Rev
>Statham;
>>
>> "His wife Adela was a daughter of William de Vernon by his wife Emma,
>daughter
>> of William FitzOsborn, Earl of Hereford and Lord of the Isle of Wright. It
>will
>> be seen that Nigel's son, Richard held some position in that family. As
>Nehou
>> passed about this time into the possession of the Vernon's (Ref Histore des
>> Eveques de Coutances, M. Lecanu, Coutance 1839) it is just possible that
>> Adela's brother William had married a daughter of Nigel III, receiving with
>her
>> in free marriage this important fief".
>>
>> So it seems to ck with Keets-Rohan as quoted by above by Todd.
>Except that naming the father of the Vernons as William questionable (he
>appears to have been father of their brother Hugh, but there is reason
>to suspect that they were only uterine half-brothers, the sons of a
>different father). That their mother was Emma was (if I recall
>correctly) shown by CP, but this has since been shown to be wrong. That
>she was daughter of William Fitz Osborn is both extremely problematic,
>chronologically speaking, and at odds with Torigny. Fortunately, it
>would seem the St-S family will be described, at least in outline, in an
>upcomong publication of K-R's Medieval Prosopography Group.
>
></PRE></HTML>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm maybe I misread the above reply. As to the Dugdale tie in, yes - that came
from 'reed...@aol.com' and he mentioned the CP also and I took it as part of
the Dugdale citation. But the question remains in the FitzOsborn connection. I
have Emma dau of Wm FitzOsborn which seems to be debatable here.
Thanks for the information Todd. I must try to find Keets-Rohan stuff.
Yes there is a Richard FitzNigel. He is the Br to Wm FNigel and father of 6
children including Gilbert de Malpas. Richard FNigel, Baron Malpas, ob. 1133
married Leticia dau of Robert FitzHugh (that's the illeg son of Earl Hugh of
Chester) who was Baron Malpas. I have his line to fairly recent since he is the
ancestor of the Statham line.
To confuse it even further, one of the brothers to these two MAY? be William
de Percy but thats another topic.
William FNigel is the one who's daughter Agnes who married Eustance FitzJohn
de Burgo as discussed before on this newgroup. Their descent became the de Lacy
line and carried the original Constable of Chester with it. (But be careful -
it is not simple since a Burgo 'took' the Lacy name etc)
StNeel
Reedpcgen
I'm sure StNeel is trying to be helpful, but there are many inaccuracies in the
assumptions that are being stated as fact. I would suggest that you don't make
statements like:
"Yes there is a Richard FitzNigel. He is the Br to Wm FNigel and father of 6
children including Gilbert de Malpas. Richard FNigel, Baron Malpas, ob. 1133
married Leticia dau of Robert FitzHugh (that's the illeg son of Earl Hugh of
Chester) who was Baron Malpas. I have his line to fairly recent since he is the
ancestor of the Statham line."
You must cite sources, SPECIFIC sources, for statements like this. (1) You
still haven't established that Robert Fitz Hugh was an illegitimate son of Earl
Hugh. (2) What evidence do you have (sources, please!) that Gilbert de Malpas
was son of Richard Fitz Nigel?
Please, give us specific sources so we have some idea of where you are getting
this from. Nothing of secondary nature was accurate on the Massey family,
Barons of Dunham Massey, Cheshire in the study I made on them. So I am very
familiar with these early Cheshire families and their sources. I cannot stand
by and let statements like this be made without some challenge. I don't mean
to be rude, but in this thread it is time to back up what you are saying.
P. S. For those who are interested, the film which has the Deputy Keepers
Reports with the appendices dealing with Cheshire records is:
FHL #1,559,391
This also has some records of the Palatinate of Durham, Palatinate of
Lancaster, and Duchy of Lancaster, and it is a rarely cited source, so it
contains many things no secondary publication refers to. I would suggest that
anyone seriously interested in Cheshire ancestry procure a copy. It leads you
places Ormerod never thought of (or just touched on).
pcr
Todd A. Farmerie
[I accidentally responded by e-mail, so I am reposting, (or rather,
posting). Note to StNeel - after checking my source, I have made a
significant change regarding the Percy comment from what I sent you, so
please take a look.]
StNeel wrote:
>
> But the question remains in the FitzOsborn connection. I
> have Emma dau of Wm FitzOsborn which seems to be debatable here.
This combines two different issues. The first is that the mother of
Hugh Fitz William, (?half-)brother of the earliest generation of
Vernon/Redvers, was thought to be named Emma. The second is that
Baldwin de Redvers is called nephew of William Fitz Osborn (perhaps
using "nepos" which can also mean grandson). Someone put the two of
these together to give William Fitz Osborn a daughter (or sister) Emma.
The problem is that the chronology is all wrong for the Fitz Osborn
connection (not to mention it was well known that both Fitz Osborn and
Vernon/Redvers descended from siblings of Gunnor - I suspect that it is
this distant relationship that was remembered, that William was an older
kinsman of Baldwin, and not strictly his uncle). Likewise, it is clear
that Emma was not Hugh's mother, but (if I recall correctly) wife of his
son William Fitz Hugh. Thus there are all kinds of problems with this
reconstruction.
> To confuse it even further, one of the brothers to these two MAY? be William
> de Percy but thats another topic.
This is the situation I was talking about. Nigel/Niel had two sons
named William. I have seen at least three different men identified as
one of these Williams. These are William Fitz Nigel, William de Percy,
and William d'Aubigny (the latter case is interesting in that the St-S
used the family names Nigel and Roger, and starting in this generation,
William, while the earliest generations of d'Aubigny are likewise
Rogers, Nigels, and Williams).
Since he only had two documented sons named William, one of these must
be wrong. Do we really know that
either of the other two are right? Do we really "know" that Nigel of
Halton is Neel de StSauvier?
> William FNigel is the one who's daughter Agnes who married Eustance FitzJohn
> de Burgo as discussed before on this newgroup. Their descent became the de Lacy
> line and carried the original Constable of Chester with it. (But be careful -
> it is not simple since a Burgo 'took' the Lacy name etc)
Actually, I think the Burgo name, as applied to this family, is
apocryphal (assigned long after the fact when the Burgh/Burkes were
incorrectly traced through this line). CP discusses the early
generations of this family in detail (under Vescy?).
taf
StNeel
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote
>I'm sure StNeel is trying to be helpful, but there are many inaccuracies in
the
>assumptions that are being stated as fact. I would suggest that you don't
make statements like:
>
>"Yes there is a Richard FitzNigel. He is the Br to Wm FNigel and father of 6
>children including Gilbert de Malpas. Richard FNigel, Baron Malpas, ob. 1133
>married Leticia dau of Robert FitzHugh (that's the illeg son of Earl Hugh of
>Chester) who was Baron Malpas.
>
>You must cite sources, SPECIFIC sources, for statements like this. (1) You
still haven't established that Robert Fitz Hugh was an illegitimate son of Earl
>Hugh. (2) What evidence do you have (sources, please!) that Gilbert de
>Malpas
>was son of Richard Fitz Nigel?
>
>Please, give us specific sources so we have some idea of where you are
>getting
>this from. Nothing of secondary nature was accurate on the Massey family,
>Barons of Dunham Massey, Cheshire in the study I made on them. So I am very
>familiar with these early Cheshire families and their sources. I cannot
>stand
>by and let statements like this be made without some challenge. I don't mean
>to be rude, but in this thread it is time to back up what you are saying.
>
>P. S. For those who are interested, the film which has the Deputy Keepers
>Reports with the appendices dealing with Cheshire records is:
>
>FHL #1,559,391
>
>This also has some records of the Palatinate of Durham, Palatinate of
>Lancaster, and Duchy of Lancaster, and it is a rarely cited source, so it
>contains many things no secondary publication refers to. I would suggest
>that
>anyone seriously interested in Cheshire ancestry procure a copy. It leads
>you
>places Ormerod never thought of (or just touched on).
>
>pcr
></PRE></HTML>
O my! Yes one should have documents etc - I suggest you look up the fourteen or
so I gave at the beginning of this discussion.
No I don't HAVE TO do anything. I for one am grateful for the tip when
searching that 'Aunt Masie was born in Podunk NZ'. I then go look there. Not
trying to be rude or anything but I suggest you chase the Malpas title to find
Richard and Gilbert.
You wrote
> Nothing of secondary nature was accurate on the Massey family,
>Barons of Dunham Massey, Cheshire in the study I made on them. So I am very
>familiar with these early Cheshire families and their sources. I cannot
>stand
>by and let statements like this be made without some challenge.
I am not sure what this has to do with the Malpas discussion. We all have been
exposed to bad genealogy (and history for that fact - look in any modern PC
book). I for one don't believe a 'modern' listing is any better than the old
boys that lived it. The 'moderns' at best reads the old records also.
I suspect that FHL 1559391 has some data on
Gilbert de Malpas d1182 , L of Lymme Chester, L of Bold Lancs, s of Richard
FitzNigel, m Mabel got lands between the Ribble & Mersey held by Robert de
Vernon in Domesday Book.
If you disagree, please cite references as to possible error. (Just kidding -
but the point is to discuss and debate, then come to a conclusion)
StNeel
StNeel
Now, for the rest of those who are truely interested;
"It is not known how the Kinderton moiety of Lymme came into the possession of
the descendants of Richard FitzNigel. It is certain that it did and was held by
them of the Honour of Halton (O.i.707). It is possible that William FitzNigel I
acquired it and enfeoffed his brother Richard with it. It eventually came to
this Gilbert's (StNeel - Gilbert de Malpas) son, who, making it his chief
residence, was generally known as GIlbert de Lymme. The land between the Ribble
and Mersey held by Robert FitzHugh in Domesday also decended mainly to Gilbert
de Malpas. It is almost impossible to connect many of the Lancashire manors
with their Domesday tenants; but I imagine that Bold in Prescot parish, in the
Hundred of West Derby, represents a part of the 2 carucates held by Robert in
1086. A good account of this manor is given in the V.H.Lancs (iii 403) but I am
not able to understand the interpretation placed by the author upon the passage
referring to Bold in tje Testa de Nevill. A careful consideration of that
entry makes it quite clear that a GIlbert held 'anciently' 4 bovates in Bold,
which passed to his son RIchard and his grandson Adam. By 1212 the 4 bovates
had increased to four carucates which were then held by Adam FitzRichard. A
part of this increase isexplained by a grant of half a carucate to Alberta
(corrupted into Albert in the Cockersand Chartulary) by her grandfather Tuger
senex, probably in free marriage with RIchard de Bold. This identification of
Bold with Robert FitzHugh's 2 carucates in Domesday receives curious
comfirmation from a settlement made in 1272 (V.H.L. iii, 403, n 14) wherein a
confusion is apparent between William FitzNigel of Halton and Richard FitzNigel
of West Derby. There is a charter (C.W. f. 275) recorded by which Geva,
daughter of Anketil grants to Gilbert FitzRichard lands lying outside the north
gate of Chester and the land of Bache, together with a copse and a furlong near
the chapel of S. Thomas which stood near the north gate. Richard de Bold
granted an acre in alms to the Hospital of S. John outside the north gate at
Chester (Farrer, Lancs, Pipe R. 153) . This when compared with the entry under
Bold and Lawerke (La Quicke) in the Testa de Nevill, would appear to settle the
question of the descent of the 2 carucates in Domesday. In the same chartulary
(C.W. 302), GIlbert de Malpas is recorded as attesting a charter of Ralph de
Mold (Montalt), dapifer to the Earl of Chester. This document must have been
drawn between 1161-1182, probably about 1170. In another deed (ib 388) Gilbert
de Lymme and Mabel his wife are mentioned as giving a quittance, with Henry de
Tabley and his wife, of one third of a messuage and 2 ox gangs of land in Lower
Babington. Gilbert also held a portion at least of the manor of Hulton, co.
Lancs, and enfeoffed Bleiddyn de Hulton therein. (V.H.L. iv 377 n : v. 26 n. :
30 n. 64). Gilbert de Lymme, his son, made further grants or comfirmed his
father's grants to Madoc, Bleiddyn's grandson (vid. infra). It is worth noting,
as a proof of the connection between the Lymmes and Stathums, that in 1283,
David de Hulton and Robert de Stathum are found attesting together a charter to
Whalley Abbey (C.B.W. 890) The date of Gilbert de Malpas' death is unknown:
but may be rough;y assigned to 1170-1182. Of his sons -----"
I am indebted to the Rev Statham for the above information
StNeel
Stewart Baldwin
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote:
>P. S. For those who are interested, the film which has the Deputy Keepers
>Reports with the appendices dealing with Cheshire records is:
>FHL #1,559,391
>This also has some records of the Palatinate of Durham, Palatinate of
>Lancaster, and Duchy of Lancaster, and it is a rarely cited source, so it
>contains many things no secondary publication refers to. I would suggest that
>anyone seriously interested in Cheshire ancestry procure a copy. It leads you
>places Ormerod never thought of (or just touched on).
>pcr
One important volume of the Deputy Keeper's Reports which does not
appear on that film (or on any other film available from the FHL, as
far as I can determine) is volume 36, which contains abstracts of the
early Cheshire recognizance rolls. I saw a copy of volume 36 in the
library of the University of Michigan once, and copied the entries for
a few families of interest to me, but I would still like to have
access to a copy from time to time which is a little closer to Alabama
than Michigan is. Does anybody know of a copy in the Deep Sounth? (I
have had the above microfilm on indefinite loan at my local Family
History Center since shortly after you first told me about it.)
While the subject is on Cheshire sources, there is another item I
asked about a year or two ago, and enough time has passed that it is
worth trying again. I have been interested in verifying the supposed
royal descent of the Bostock family from Henry I (as given in "Royal
Descents of 500 Immigrants" p. 407), since I have a possible line of
descent from these Bostocks (still with one unverified link in the
early sixteenth century). The line printed in RD500 has a number of
links which are not documented in the sources cited by Roberts, but by
consulting other sources, I have managed to find adequate proof for
all of the generations of interest to me (i.e., generations 1-13)
except for the link between Ardernes and Wettenhalls (generations 8
and 9). In particular, I have not seen any proof that Sir John
Wettenhall's wife was Agnes daughter of Sir John Arderne. Ormerod, in
his discussion of these families, cites a document from something
called "Williamson's Cheshire Evidences" which appears to be relevant
to this claimed link, although it is not clear whether or not it
supplies proof. Can anybody tell me what "Williamson's Cheshire
Evidences" is, and where I can find a copy? [Or, if somebody wants to
volunteer proof of the Arderne-Wettenhall link from some other source,
I would be quite willing to accept that as an alternative. :-)]
Stewart Baldwin