Audley
Roem...@aol.com
Hugh (James in Ormerod's HISTORY OF CHESHIRE) d'Audley had a daughter
Elizabeth who married Sir William de Bostock (living 1234), son of Sir Ralph
Bostock (in Ormerod, Gilbert) and Eleanor Poole. Sir Ralph was son of Sir
Warren Bostock and Hawise (d. 1242/43), dau of Hugh de Kevelioc. Sir Warren
was Hawise's 2nd husband, her first husband being Robert de Quincy.
I can not find where Hugh/James d'Audley, father of Elizabeth, fits into the
Audley family. Hugh/James d'Audley, as father of Elizabeth, would be in the
generation of Sir Ralph Bostock, son of Hawise. Hawise' sister Amicie
married Sir Ralph de Mainwaring and had Bertred who married Henry d'Audley.
Bertred Mainwaring and Sir Ralph Bostock were then first cousins. And
Bertred's son (Amicia's grandson) James d'Audley (d. 1271) was a second
cousin of Hawise' grandson, Sir Wm. de Bostock who married Elizabeth
d'Audley. Therefore, it seems possible that James d'Audley, grandson of
Amicia and second cousin of Sir William, and Hugh/James d'Audley,
father-in-law of Sir William, could be the same person.
I would appreciate it if someone could verify this.
To make this more probable, both a Bostock descendant of Hawise and a
Mainwaring descendant of Amicia married into the Baskervyle family of Old
Withington, Cheshire. The earliest Baskervyle known in Cheshire was Sir John
de Baskervyle who received a grant of a moiety of Old Withington in 1266 from
Robert de Camville. The mother of Ela Longspee, wife of James d'Audley
above, was a Camville. I am wondering if Robert de Camville could be related
to Ela Longspee's mother, and if Camvilles and Baskervyles had some family
connection which would explain the grant. I am simply speculating. We know
nothing back of Sir John de Baskervyle of Cheshire.
James d'Audley and Ela Longspee had Hugh d'Audley who married Isolde de
Mortimer and had Alice Mortimer, who married ca 1326/27 Ralph de Neville,
Baron Neville of Raby. As Sir John de Baskervyle (1266) of Cheshire is
postulated a descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville of Normandy, whose brother
was said by Orderic Vitalis to be Richard de Neville, I might speculate again
that this Ralph de Neville who married Alice d'Audley and the Baskervyles of
Cheshire were distant cousins.
(I might add that 200 years where generations of people are concerned is not
long. My grandfather was born in 1848. And further, this grandfather came
from Alsace to Bowling Green, Ky. in 1864 and married Elizabeth Baskerville
of Sumner Co., Tenn., a desc. of Sir John de Baskervyle, above. The descent
from Sir John to Elizabeth's grandfather George Baskerville of Sumner Co. is
laid out name by name by Patrick Hamilton Baskervill in his book BASKERVILLE
GENEALOGY.)
Any help on the d'Audleys would be greatly appreciated.
Kay
Kay Allen AG
Roem...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I am having a problem connecting my Audley ancestor to other Audleys.
>
> Hugh (James in Ormerod's HISTORY OF CHESHIRE) d'Audley had a daughter
> Elizabeth who married Sir William de Bostock (living 1234),
Henry Audley (c.1175-1246) married Bertrade Mainwaring and had a son
James (c.1220-1272). So for Elizabeth to be James' dtr. would be
chronologically a little tight, unless Sir William was older than she.
son of Sir Ralph
> Bostock (in Ormerod, Gilbert) and Eleanor Poole. Sir Ralph was son of Sir
> Warren Bostock and Hawise (d. 1242/43), dau of Hugh de Kevelioc.
This marriage and the resulting filiation is questionable.
Unknown + Hugh Kevelioc =Bertade Montfort
1 1
1 1
Amice=R. Mainwaring Hawise=?Sir Warren Bostock
1 1
Bertrade=H. Audley Sir Ralph Bostock
1 1
James 1
1? 1
Elizabeth=Sir William
Bostock
The problems are chronology and consanguinity. The Elizabeth-Sir William
marriage should be within the prohibited degrees (if I calculated
correctly?) and would thus require a dispensation. They are
second cousins of the half-blood, once removed. Somebody please
doublecheck that! :-)
Sir Warren
> was Hawise's 2nd husband, her first husband being Robert de Quincy.
>
> I can not find where Hugh/James d'Audley, father of Elizabeth, fits into the
> Audley family. Hugh/James d'Audley, as father of Elizabeth, would be in the
> generation of Sir Ralph Bostock, son of Hawise. Hawise' sister Amicie
Hawise and Amice are only sisters of the half-blood. Hawise is Hugh's
legitimate dtr. by Bertrade. Amice is probably an illegitimate dtr. by
an unknown mother.
> married Sir Ralph de Mainwaring and had Bertred who married Henry d'Audley.
> Bertred Mainwaring and Sir Ralph Bostock were then first cousins of the half-blood.
And
> Bertred's son (Amicia's grandson) James d'Audley (d. 1271) was a second
> cousin of the half-blood.
of Hawise' grandson, Sir Wm. de Bostock who married Elizabeth
> d'Audley. Therefore, it seems possible that James d'Audley, grandson of
> Amicia and second cousin of Sir William, and Hugh/James d'Audley,
> father-in-law of Sir William, could be the same person.
>
> I would appreciate it if someone could verify this.
>
> To make this more probable, both a Bostock descendant of Hawise and a
> Mainwaring descendant of Amicia married into the Baskervyle family of Old
> Withington, Cheshire. The earliest Baskervyle known in Cheshire was Sir John
> de Baskervyle who received a grant of a moiety of Old Withington in 1266 from
> Robert de Camville. The mother of Ela Longspee, wife of James d'Audley
> above, was a Camville. I am wondering if Robert de Camville could be related
> to Ela Longspee's mother, and if Camvilles and Baskervyles had some family
> connection which would explain the grant. I am simply speculating. We know
> nothing back of Sir John de Baskervyle of Cheshire.
>
> James d'Audley and Ela Longspee had Hugh d'Audley who married Isolde de
> Mortimer and had Alice Mortimer, who married ca 1326/27 Ralph de Neville,
> Baron Neville of Raby. As Sir John de Baskervyle (1266) of Cheshire is
> postulated a descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville of Normandy, whose brother
> was said by Orderic Vitalis to be Richard de Neville, I might speculate again
> that this Ralph de Neville who married Alice d'Audley and the Baskervyles of
> Cheshire were distant cousins.
The Baskerville ancestry is not as said. The main Baskerville families
are in Hereford, not Cheshire.
What is your source for this John Baskerville? Does the family appear in
Ormerod.
>
> (I might add that 200 years where generations of people are concerned is not
> long. My grandfather was born in 1848. And further, this grandfather came
> from Alsace to Bowling Green, Ky. in 1864 and married Elizabeth Baskerville
> of Sumner Co., Tenn., a desc. of Sir John de Baskervyle, above. The descent
> from Sir John to Elizabeth's grandfather George Baskerville of Sumner Co. is
> laid out name by name by Patrick Hamilton Baskervill in his book BASKERVILLE
> GENEALOGY.)
I am extremely dubious about the reliability of this Baskerville
Genealogy. Could you please tell us someting about it. My innate
suspiciousness is screaming that it is all a big, fat fairy tale.
Kay Allen AG
Roem...@aol.com
As I said, I am speculating as to where Hugh/James d'Audley fits into the
Audley picture. It's possible that James d'Audley and Ela Longspee's son
Hugh is the one who was father of Elizabeth, in which case Elizabeth and
William de Bostock would be half-third(?) cousins. But I can't believe that
half-second cousins, once removed, would be within a prohibited degree. I
hoped someone would have enough data on the Audleys to find a Hugh or James
d'Audley with daughter Elizabeth.
Regarding your reply on the de Montforts, you show Amaury de Montfort with
wife Agnes de Garlende. The source from the Internet gives Simon III de
Montfort as son of Amaury de Montfort and wife Richilde. And Amaury and
Richilde were parents of Lucienne de Montfort who married Agnes de Garlande.
So, you and this source do not agree on whom Amaury de Montfort and Agnes de
Garlande married.
The Bostock genealogy and the marriage of Hawise to Sir Warren Bostock comes
from BASKERVILLE GENEALOGY (1912) by Patrick Hamilton Baskervill. This book
has been reprinted by Heritage Books, and is available at Heritage, and also
Barnes and Noble. Other Baskerville genealogy comes from ADDITIONAL
BASKERVILLE GENEALOGY (1917) by Patrick Hamilton Baskervill. This book is
out of print. P. H. Baskervill reports that the Bostock data in these two
volumes comes from Ormerod's HISTORY OF CHESHIRE. Dave on GEN-MEDIEVAL
writes that this second marriage of Hawise to Warren Bostock can be found in
Ancestry of Elizabeth of York, 142:1399
Yes. There was almost a 200-year span between Sir Robert de Baskerville of
Erdisley/Eardisley and Sir John de Baskervyle of Cheshire. Whether the names
connecting them will ever be known remains to be seen. I believe, although
I've been disputed, that the Baskervyles of Cheshire are probably descendants
of Robert de Baskerville of Erdisley/Eardisley, and that Robert was a
descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville-en-Caux, Normandy. Nicholas' son,
William Martel de Basqueville, sometimes called Geoffrey Martel, is found on
Battle Abbey lists. Another son of Nicholas was Walter de St. Martin, who on
the lists is thought to be the one called "Sire de St. Martin." Almost
certainly, sons or grandsons of brothers of Nicholas were in the battle,
i.e., Richard and Robert de Neville, Fulk d'Aunou, and Robert de Courcy, and
at least two brothers-in-law, or sons of sisters and brothers-in-law, Robert
Fitz Erneis and Fulk de Boneval. These names are found on Battle Abbey
lists. Do I hear someone saying, "for what it's worth"? But I ask, would
William have let young bloods like these go to waste? For what reason did
they hold, or their parents hold, their fiefs if not to be called upon to
fight?
If Orderic is correct, Nicholas de Bacqueville's father, Baudric le Teuton,
married a niece of Gilbert de Brionne (ancestor of the de Clares). Nicholas
married a niece of Gunnora, wife of Richard I, Duke of Normandy. According
to William of Jumieges, Gunnora's brother Herfast was father of the nieces
for whom Gunnora is noted. Osbern de Crepon, nephew of Gunnora and father of
William Fitz Osbern, was Nicholas' brother-in-law. Another niece of Gunnora
was ancestor of the Montgomerys. One of Gunnora's sisters was ancestor of
the Beaumonts and another of the Giffards. These families were represented
in the Battle of Hastings. It would be ridiculous to believe that Nicholas'
was not.
Nicholas de Baskerville's son, William Martel or Geoffrey Martel de
Baskerville, is supposed to have received the name martel, meaning "hammer,"
as award for bravery. The Baskerville shield, which is the same for the
Erdisley Baskervilles and Cheshire Baskervyles (the crests are different),
shows "the head" of three "hammers." I believe that the Baskervyles of
Cheshire are a branch of the Erdisley Baskervilles. It is possible that John
Baskervyle of Cheshire was from a branch of the family of Thomas Baskerville
of Shropshire, son of Ralph of Erdisley (living 1194).
Patrick Hamilton Baskervill's data on the descent of Baskervyles of Old
Withington, Cheshire, comes from Ormerod's HISTORY OF CHESHIRE. The data for
a chart showing descent from Sir John de Baskervyle of Old Withington was
taken "From Booth's Pedigrees, and the Visitations, with additions and
corrections from the Plea and Recognizance, Rolls, Charters, Wills, and from
the parochial registers, and an original pedigree communicated by John Glegg,
Esq."
As recently as 1912, Old Withington in Cheshire was still owned by Baskervyle
descendants whose name had become Glegg when John Baskervyle of Old
Withington and Blackden, esqr., married Mary Glegg, and assumed the name of
Glegg, pursuant to the will of Wm. Glegg (1706-1758). Later generations
living at Old Withington called themselves Baskervyle-Glegg.
Baskervilles did not appear out of thin air. Your help is appreciated, but I
believe I could recognize "a big fat fairy tale."
Kay
William Addams Reitwiesner
<snip>
>Yes. There was almost a 200-year span between Sir Robert de Baskerville of
>Erdisley/Eardisley and Sir John de Baskervyle of Cheshire. Whether the names
> connecting them will ever be known remains to be seen.
I've snipped out this fragment of your message to point out another
beginner's mistake. That is, you are assuming that two persons several
hundred years apart with similar names ARE connected. When you say,
"Whether the names connecting them will ever be known", you are starting
from the position that there is a connection of some sort between them.
> I believe, although
>I've been disputed, that the Baskervyles of Cheshire are probably descendants
>of Robert de Baskerville of Erdisley/Eardisley, and that Robert was a
>descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville-en-Caux, Normandy. Nicholas' son,
>William Martel de Basqueville, sometimes called Geoffrey Martel, is found on
>Battle Abbey lists.
The Battle Abbey lists are a charming old fraud, compiled with great energy
and with no historical accuracy, by the Duchess of Cleveland (who lived at
Battle Abbey).
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
A Channing
>
> <snip>
>
> Roem...@aol.com wrote:
> > I believe, although
> >I've been disputed, that the Baskervyles of Cheshire are probably
descendants
> >of Robert de Baskerville of Erdisley/Eardisley, and that Robert was a
> >descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville-en-Caux, Normandy. Nicholas' son,
> >William Martel de Basqueville, sometimes called Geoffrey Martel, is
found on
> >Battle Abbey lists.
>
William Addams Reitwiesner reply:
> The Battle Abbey lists are a charming old fraud, compiled with great
energy
> and with no historical accuracy, by the Duchess of Cleveland (who lived
at
> Battle Abbey).
You might like to know that Cleveland's source for this was "Eyton's
Shropshire".
I don't know much about the accuracy of Robert William Eyton (1815-1881)
He was
educated at Rugby; MA, Christ Church, Oxford, 1845; rector of Ryton,
1841-63.
;
Adrian (Surrey, UK) ACha...@CompuServe.Com
Kay Allen AG
>
> Thanks,
>
> As I said, I am speculating as to where Hugh/James d'Audley fits into the
> Audley picture. It's possible that James d'Audley and Ela Longspee's son
> Hugh is the one who was father of Elizabeth, in which case Elizabeth and
> William de Bostock would be half-third(?) cousins. But I can't believe that
> half-second cousins, once removed, would be within a prohibited degree. I
> hoped someone would have enough data on the Audleys to find a Hugh or James
> d'Audley with daughter Elizabeth.
The Audleys are a well-known, well-researched family. The fact that a
dtr. Elizabeth marrying a Bostock isn't seen doesn't mean there is no
such person, but it does cast a shadow.
>
> Regarding your reply on the de Montforts, you show Amaury de Montfort with
> wife Agnes de Garlende. The source from the Internet gives Simon III de
> Montfort as son of Amaury de Montfort and wife Richilde. And Amaury and
> Richilde were parents of Lucienne de Montfort who married Agnes de Garlande.
> So, you and this source do not agree on whom Amaury de Montfort and Agnes de
> Garlande married.
The information comes from the George Andrews Moriarty, a well-known and
well-respected genealogist. I would basically prefer his opinion to that
of an unnamed site on the Internet. The Internet is not the be-all and
end-all of genealogical knowledge, far from it. Would you please be so
kind as to specify the site from whence comes this information and any
sources for this information which it might cite?
>
> The Bostock genealogy and the marriage of Hawise to Sir Warren Bostock comes
> from BASKERVILLE GENEALOGY (1912) by Patrick Hamilton Baskervill. This book
> has been reprinted by Heritage Books, and is available at Heritage, and also
> Barnes and Noble.
So it appears in print and is sold. This proves nothing. Genealogical
Publishing Company in Baltimore publishes and sells genealogical books.
Some of them currently in print aren't worth the powder to blow them
anyplace.
Other Baskerville genealogy comes from ADDITIONAL
> BASKERVILLE GENEALOGY (1917) by Patrick Hamilton Baskervill. This book is
> out of print. P. H. Baskervill reports that the Bostock data in these two
> volumes comes from Ormerod's HISTORY OF CHESHIRE. Dave on GEN-MEDIEVAL
> writes that this second marriage of Hawise to Warren Bostock can be found in
> Ancestry of Elizabeth of York, 142:1399
This book is also chock full of inaccuracies. And in which edition of
Ormerod does this appear? There are two editions. Ormerod is usually
fairly sound, especially in the 2nd or Helsby edition. Could you pleas
provide a citation?
>
> Yes. There was almost a 200-year span between Sir Robert de Baskerville of
> Erdisley/Eardisley and Sir John de Baskervyle of Cheshire. Whether the names
> connecting them will ever be known remains to be seen. I believe, although
> I've been disputed, that the Baskervyles of Cheshire are probably descendants
> of Robert de Baskerville of Erdisley/Eardisley, and that Robert was a
> descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville-en-Caux, Normandy. Nicholas' son,
> William Martel de Basqueville, sometimes called Geoffrey Martel, is found on
> Battle Abbey lists. Another son of Nicholas was Walter de St. Martin, who on
> the lists is thought to be the one called "Sire de St. Martin." Almost
> certainly, sons or grandsons of brothers of Nicholas were in the battle,
> i.e., Richard and Robert de Neville, Fulk d'Aunou, and Robert de Courcy, and
> at least two brothers-in-law, or sons of sisters and brothers-in-law, Robert
> Fitz Erneis and Fulk de Boneval. These names are found on Battle Abbey
> lists. Do I hear someone saying, "for what it's worth"?
Yes, which is not very much indeed, as others are no doubt telling you.
But I ask, would
> William have let young bloods like these go to waste? For what reason did
> they hold, or their parents hold, their fiefs if not to be called upon to
> fight?
>
> If Orderic is correct, Nicholas de Bacqueville's father, Baudric le Teuton,
> married a niece of Gilbert de Brionne (ancestor of the de Clares). Nicholas
> married a niece of Gunnora, wife of Richard I, Duke of Normandy. According
> to William of Jumieges, Gunnora's brother Herfast was father of the nieces
> for whom Gunnora is noted. Osbern de Crepon, nephew of Gunnora and father of
> William Fitz Osbern, was Nicholas' brother-in-law. Another niece of Gunnora
> was ancestor of the Montgomerys. One of Gunnora's sisters was ancestor of
> the Beaumonts and another of the Giffards. These families were represented
> in the Battle of Hastings. It would be ridiculous to believe that Nicholas'
> was not.
When you have studied medieval history and genealogy for over
twenty-five years, it will be interesting to see if you are quite so
cock-sure of yourself and these theories :-)
>
> Nicholas de Baskerville's son, William Martel or Geoffrey Martel de
> Baskerville, is supposed to have received the name martel, meaning "hammer,"
> as award for bravery. The Baskerville shield, which is the same for the
> Erdisley Baskervilles and Cheshire Baskervyles (the crests are different),
> shows "the head" of three "hammers." I believe that the Baskervyles of
> Cheshire are a branch of the Erdisley Baskervilles. It is possible that John
> Baskervyle of Cheshire was from a branch of the family of Thomas Baskerville
> of Shropshire, son of Ralph of Erdisley (living 1194).
>
> Patrick Hamilton Baskervill's data on the descent of Baskervyles of Old
> Withington, Cheshire, comes from Ormerod's HISTORY OF CHESHIRE.
Citation, please.
The data for
> a chart showing descent from Sir John de Baskervyle of Old Withington was
> taken "From Booth's Pedigrees, and the Visitations, with additions and
> corrections from the Plea and Recognizance, Rolls, Charters, Wills, and from
> the parochial registers, and an original pedigree communicated by John Glegg,
> Esq."
Have you consulted this source to see if it does state what it is
claimed to state?
Have you tried to verify all these statements or are you just taking
them as Gospel? From your reaction, I'd guess that you haven't tried to
verify them independently, yet.
>
> As recently as 1912, Old Withington in Cheshire was still owned by Baskervyle
> descendants whose name had become Glegg when John Baskervyle of Old
> Withington and Blackden, esqr., married Mary Glegg, and assumed the name of
> Glegg, pursuant to the will of Wm. Glegg (1706-1758). Later generations
> living at Old Withington called themselves Baskervyle-Glegg.
>
> Baskervilles did not appear out of thin air. Your help is appreciated, but I
> believe I could recognize "a big fat fairy tale."
I am not going to hold my breath on that one :-) Your critical
facilities still need much reading and growing with experience in this
area.
Kay Allen AG
>
> Kay
Kay Allen AG
he wrote was taken in vain. :-)
But being 19th century, he does need to be verified. At least he
footnoted with his sources, usually primary.
Kay Allen AG
A Channing wrote:
>
> >
> > <snip>
>
> >
> > Roem...@aol.com wrote:
> > > I believe, although
> > >I've been disputed, that the Baskervyles of Cheshire are probably
> descendants
> > >of Robert de Baskerville of Erdisley/Eardisley, and that Robert was a
> > >descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville-en-Caux, Normandy. Nicholas' son,
>
> > >William Martel de Basqueville, sometimes called Geoffrey Martel, is
> found on
> > >Battle Abbey lists.
> >
>
Todd A. Farmerie
> Yes. There was almost a 200-year span between Sir Robert de Baskerville of
> Erdisley/Eardisley and Sir John de Baskervyle of Cheshire. Whether the names
> connecting them will ever be known remains to be seen. I believe, although
> I've been disputed, that the Baskervyles of Cheshire are probably descendants
> of Robert de Baskerville of Erdisley/Eardisley,
What makes you think there was a connection. In 1086 there were two
different Bacqueville men in England, so even this early there could
have been multiple families of the name. Likewise there were at least
two Bacqueville towns in Normandy, so there is no reason to connect them
all with the same town, let alone the same family.
> and that Robert was a
> descendant of Nicholas de Bacqueville-en-Caux, Normandy.
Since Bacqueville-en-Caux went to Hadvise, wife of Hugh Fitz Grip, and
from them to their nephew William Martel, while other land owned by
Hadvise went to Alfred of Lincoln (who perhaps married a daughter of
Hugh and Hadvise, or else a widowed second wife of Hugh), it seems
unlikely that there would be a son completely excluded unless he had
left the realm.
> Nicholas' son,
> William Martel de Basqueville, sometimes called Geoffrey Martel, is found on
> Battle Abbey lists.
While William is called son of Nicholas by Robert de Torigny, he was
misled here by the inheritance. William is well proven to have been son
of (not sometimes called) Geoffrey Martel (fitz Grip). William would
not have served at the Battle, being still active (although presumably
somewhat senior) in about 1126.
> Another son of Nicholas was Walter de St. Martin, who on
> the lists is thought to be the one called "Sire de St. Martin."
This genealogical connection is more problematic. Elsewhere in the same
source Walter is called a brother of William de Warenne, and a kinship
with the latter seems more likely, as elsewhere Walter de St. Martin is
found with Warenne and Roger de Mortemer, who is also closely linked to
Warenne.
> Almost
> certainly, sons or grandsons of brothers of Nicholas were in the battle,
> i.e., Richard and Robert de Neville, Fulk d'Aunou, and Robert de Courcy, and
I know of no evidence of a Neville connection to Bacqueville, while Fulk
d'Aunou and Robert de Courcy were his brothers.
> at least two brothers-in-law, or sons of sisters and brothers-in-law, Robert
> Fitz Erneis and Fulk de Boneval.
I have seen no evidence to connect either of these to Bacqueville.
> These names are found on Battle Abbey
> lists. Do I hear someone saying, "for what it's worth"? But I ask, would
> William have let young bloods like these go to waste? For what reason did
> they hold, or their parents hold, their fiefs if not to be called upon to
> fight?
Certainly many such men did serve, but not all of them, and you can't
extrapolate from "many" to say that a particular one did participate.
> If Orderic is correct, Nicholas de Bacqueville's father, Baudric le Teuton,
> married a niece of Gilbert de Brionne (ancestor of the de Clares). Nicholas
> married a niece of Gunnora, wife of Richard I, Duke of Normandy.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, based on the fact that Fulk d'Aunou had a
sister Gunnor, Keats-Rohan has suggested that these two somehow got
switched, and that it was Baldric who married the Gunnorid, while
Nicholas married Gilbert's niece. This works better chronologically,
since Gilbert de Brionne was two generations after Gunnor, his niece
three and Nicholas four, while the wife of Nicholas would be just one,
or perhaps two generation removed from Gunnor. Reversing them as
Keats-Rohan suggests makes the wife four, and the husband three or four
(because some of the nieces appear to have been grandnieces).
> According
> to William of Jumieges, Gunnora's brother Herfast was father of the nieces
> for whom Gunnora is noted.
This is a misquote. Jumieges does not address these families in his
Gesta. It is the additions to this work recognized by hand as having
been contributed by Robert de Torigny, which mention the nieces, and he
does not supply a specific parentage to any of these nieces. That they
are all daughters of Herfast is a late and unfounded assumption.
> Osbern de Crepon, nephew of Gunnora and father of
> William Fitz Osbern, was Nicholas' brother-in-law.
Perhaps, but they do not appear together, so it is unlikely.
Keats-Rohan suggests that Wevia and Osmund are the more likely parents.
> Another niece of Gunnora
> was ancestor of the Montgomerys. One of Gunnora's sisters was ancestor of
> the Beaumonts and another of the Giffards. These families were represented
> in the Battle of Hastings. It would be ridiculous to believe that Nicholas'
> was not.
Well, if Nicholas was an old man with an only daughter, it wouldn't be
so ridiculous.
> Nicholas de Baskerville's son, William Martel or Geoffrey Martel de
> Baskerville, is supposed to have received the name martel, meaning "hammer,"
> as award for bravery.
Names weren't rewards, but might have arisen through a recognition of
bravery.
> The Baskerville shield, which is the same for the
> Erdisley Baskervilles and Cheshire Baskervyles (the crests are different),
> shows "the head" of three "hammers."
Such evidence is risky. When heraldry was first developing, unrelated
families could be found with variations of the same shield, and even
later families incorrectly thought to share a common origin were given
similar coats based on this flawed tradition (i.e the Spencers received
a variant of the untirely unrelated Despencers, who got theirs as a
variant of the family they were despencers for, the Earls of Chester,
whose own was derived from a linkage to the Vere/Mandeville family
group).
taf