Husbands of Iseult/Isolde Pantolf
Tony Ingham
A check of the archives revealed that Douglas Richardson wrote in 1999:
Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, co. Worcester and Rockbourne, Hampshire,
benefactor of Hospital of Maiden Bradley.
He married (lst) Aubrey, daughter of Richard Fitz Eustace . . . .
He married (2nd) Iseult Pantolf, daughter of Roger Pantolf, of
Abkettleby, co. Leicester, widow of Walter de Tateshall and Hugh de
Montpincon. He died shortly before 11 Dec. 1213. His widow married
(4th) Amaury de St. Amand of Bloxham, co. Oxford.
Douglas stated that " This is based on original research not found
elsewhere in print."
However, in examining the de Baskerville family of Eardisley
Herefordshire, I find that Iseult was described as the widow of Walter
de Baskerville in October 1213.
Obviously either my source (only secondary at present) or Douglas' must
be at fault
Tony Ingham
tallbloke
news:mailman.483.11849237...@rootsweb.com:
> Could someone please assist me in tracing the husbands of Isolde
> Pantolf.
>
There's always a lot of confusion about the Iseult Pantulf who was married
to Walter de Tateshal. Firstly her parentage. The passage you quote has
her as the daughter of Roger Pantulf, other websites have her as the
daughter of Hugh Pantulf. I think it more likely she was the descendant of
Wiliam Pantulf of Breedon on the Hill.Secondly her date of death: Many
websites have her dead in 1222 but that must have been a different Iseult
Pantulf because she was still suing Robert son of Walter de Tateshal for
dower in 1265. This longer lifespan gives her more time to fit in all the
husbands she had, unless some of them were married to the other Iseult
Pantulf....
The following is quoted from rootsweb contributor Clive West:
The following item from the curia regis rolls confirms your view that the
Isolda who applied for dower in 1265 was the widow of Walter de Tateshal:
Curia Regis Roll 180. Hilary, 51 Henry III, 1267, m. 14 d. Leyc. Isolda,
who was the wife of Walter de Tateshale, demands v. Robert de Tateshale a
third part of a messuage, 200 acres of land, 24 of meadow and two parts of
two vivaries, 2 watermills and 33 virgates of land which are held in
villeinage, ยฃ9 4s. 0d. rent, 200 acres of pasture in Bredon, with land in
Holwell, Somerby and Dalby as dower. Robert came and said that she ought
not to have dower, because the said Walter, formerly her husband, neither
on the day of marriage, nor ever after, held the tenements in fee so that
he could dower her, but for term of his life only. Order to summon a jury.
Afterwards she asks leave to withdraw from her suit, and she has it.
As to her other husbands, Walter died comparatively young, about 39 years
old, so she had plenty of time for the others.
--
tallbloke
"Property is nine tenths of the problem" - Dr Winston 'O' Boogie
Douglas Richardson
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949):296, footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with
corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal),
shows that Iseult Pantolf (died c. 1222) was married five times:
(1) Hugh de Munpincon, who may have been dead in 1186.
(2) Walter de Tateshale, died 1199 or 1200.
(3) Walter de Baskerville.
(4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died 1211.
(5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
Iseult Pantolf's son and heir was her son by her 2nd marriage, Robert
de Tateshale, who was a minor in 1214. For particulars regarding the
Tateshale family, see Complete Peerage, vol. 12, pt. 1 sub Tateshal.
Iseult Pantulf also had two sons by her marriage to Henry Biset,
namely William Biset (died 1220 s.p.), and John Biset (died 1241).
For further particulars on the Biset family and their descendants, see
Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4 (1837): 12 (sub
Biset); Coll. Top. & Gen., 6 (1840): 154-157; Green, Feet of Fines for
Somerset 4 (Somerset Rec. Soc. 22) (1906): 166; VCH Worcester 3
(1913): 158-179 (Biset arms: Azure ten bezants); Complete Peerage, 10
(1945): 548-549 (sub Plescy), 11 (1949): 13 (sub Rivers); VCH Oxford 5
(1957): 160; VCH Oxford 4 (1979): 265-283.
Henry Biset (4th husband of Iseult Pantolf) was evidently married
twice. Iseult was his 2nd surviving wife. By an unknown first wife,
he appears to have been the father of Margaret, wife of Roger la
Zouche, which couple are ancestral to the later Lords Zouche. I
earlier thought that Henry Biset's first wife was Aubrey de Lisours,
daughter of Richard Fitz Eustace, hereditary Constable of Chester.
I've since determined that the Henry Biset who married Aubrey de
Lisours was Henry Biset, of West Allington, Lincolnshire, who was son
of William the Carpenter. For particulars on the other Henry Biset,
see Foulds, Thurgarton Cartulary (1994).
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
tallbloke
perhaps. :-))
Given that she was suing Robert de Tateshal for land in Breedon, I'll
hold that she was from Walters line.
mj...@btinternet.com
If there were a prize for new-comer of the week, it'd be yours!
Unlike the confused and irrelevant jumble of references given above,
Dugdale (Baronage, vol 1, p 440) provides a clear and primary
reference which I suspect has been used to establish a "circa 1222"
death-date for Iseult:
"[Robert de Tateshal] had livery of those lands of Isold Pantulf his
mother, which had been seized into the King's hands for certain debts
due to the Crown", citing the Fine Rolls of 7 Henry III, m4.
It is not clear to me from this reference that Iseult was dead in 7
Henry III, but only that she had lost some of her lands before that
date.
Robert, her son, died in 33 Henry III (c1249), according to Dugdale,
citing Esc 33 Henry III N39, Norfolk [an IPM]. Presumably the Robert
named in the court case of 1265 was her grandson, whom Dugdale says
was aged 26 in 1249, thus born circa 1223.
Regards, Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
> Tony Ingham <nug...@bordernet.com.au> wrote innews:mailman.483.11849237...@rootsweb.com:
>
> > Could someone please assist me in tracing the husbands of Isolde
> > Pantolf.
>
> There's always a lot of confusion about the Iseult Pantulf who was married
> to Walter de Tateshal. Firstly her parentage. The passage you quote has
> her as the daughter of Roger Pantulf, other websites have her as the
> daughter of Hugh Pantulf. I think it more likely she was the descendant of
> Wiliam Pantulf of Breedon on the Hill.
There is a very useful post which may be found in the archives here (3
September 2002) by Rosie Bevan, which suggests that Iseult was the
daughter of William Pantulf, son of William Pantulf and his wife
Burgia de Stuteville.
Michael
tallbloke
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> [snip of pointless cross-post inserted by a previous poster]
>
> On 20 Jul., 16:43, tallbloke <r...@tallbloke.net> wrote:
>
>> So the Iseult Pantulf who appeared in court in 1265 was her ghost
>> perhaps. :-))
>> Given that she was suing Robert de Tateshal for land in Breedon, I'll
>> hold that she was from Walters line.
Oops, William as I first asaid, not Walter. That's me getting mixed up.
> Robert, her son, died in 33 Henry III (c1249), according to Dugdale,
> citing Esc 33 Henry III N39, Norfolk [an IPM]. Presumably the Robert
> named in the court case of 1265 was her grandson, whom Dugdale says
> was aged 26 in 1249, thus born circa 1223.
>
Good point. He'd be in his early forties at the time of the court case and
well able to stand up to Grandma.:-)
tallbloke
news:1184949354.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> There is a very useful post which may be found in the archives here (3
> September 2002) by Rosie Bevan, which suggests that Iseult was the
> daughter of William Pantulf, son of William Pantulf and his wife
> Burgia de Stuteville.
>
I'd just add that William senior was also known as Ivo and he had a second
wife: Alice de Verdun, according to some sources. Don't ask me which though,
because it's culled off the net...
tallbloke
> Could someone please assist me in tracing the husbands of Isolde
> Pantolf.
This fairly typical of the cooked up pedigrees you'll find on the net for
sultry Iseult: http://fabpedigree.com/s093/f198279.htm
The site name says it all really: a fabulous pedigree. Lol,
From stirnet.com:
William FitzAlan, lord of Oswestry, Sheriff of Shropshire (d 1160)
m1. Christian (niece of Robert FitzRoy, Earl of Gloucester)
a. Christian
m. Hugh Pantulf
m2. Isabel de Say (dau of Elias or Ingram de Say, Lord of Clun)
Maybe some folk want to substitute Hugh Pantolf for William Pantolf
because they like the idea of having some Breton Counts in their
ancestry. Some have it anyway with the ancestors of Iseults second
husband, Walter fitzHugh de Tateshal, see my post on Breton links to early
Tattersalls.
Having said that, William and Ivo Pantulf were from Wem in Shropshire,
which isn't many miles from the Clun forest either, so maybe there's a
more complex family connection to be teased out.
tallbloke
> Could someone please assist me in tracing the husbands of Isolde
> Pantolf.
>
This is a bit more like it, here Hugh is given as Williams brother, an
altogether more likely scenario. Only 4 husbands though. The hunt for the
Baskervilles is on. The order of the husbands is dodgy too. I came across
a good site the other day which covered this, I'll try to track it down
again.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/1999-04/0924517572
Descendants of Pantulf
1 Mr. PANTULF
2 Mr. William PANTULF b: Abt. 1042 in Wem, Shropshire, England
... +Ms. Lesceline m: 1077 in Wem, Shropshire, England
. 3 Mr. Robert PANTULF b: Abt. 1080 in Wem, Shropshire, England
..... + m: Abt. 1113 in Wem, Shropshire, England
... 4 Mr. Ivo PANTULF b: Abt. 1114 in Wem, Shropshire, England
....... + b: Abt. 1123 in Wem, Shropshire, England m: Abt. 1144 in Wem,
Shropshire, England ..... 5 Lord Hugh PANTULF Baron (Lord) of Wemme b:
Abt. 1145 in Wem, Shropshire, England ......... +Ms. Christiana FITZALAN
m: 1170 in Wem, Shropshire, England ...... 6 Mr. William PANTULF b: Abt.
1171 in Wem, Shropshire, England ...... 6 Mr. Ivo PANTULF b: Abt. 1173 in
Wem, Shropshire, England ...... 6 Mr. Alan PANTULF b: Abt. 1175 in Wem,
Shropshire, England ...... 6 Mr. Hugh PANTULF b: Abt. 1177 in Wem,
Shropshire, England ...... 6 Ms. Emma PANTULF b: Abt. 1181 in Wem,
Shropshire, England ..... 5 Mr. Hameline PANTULF b: Abt. 1147 in Wem,
Shropshire, England ..... 5 Mr. Brice PANTULF b: Abt. 1149 in Wem,
Shropshire, England
..... 5 Mr. William PANTULF b: Abt. 1151 in Wem, Shropshire, England
Residence: Breedon, Leicestershire, England ......... +Ms. Joan DE
GOLDINGTON Father: Mr. Piers DE GOLDINGTON Mother: Ms. Eve ...... 6 Ms.
Iseult (Isolda) PANTULF b 1: 1169 b 2: Abt. 1170 b 3: Abt. 1175 d: Abt.
1222 Residence: Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicestershire, England
.......... +Mr. Robert (or Walter) DE TATESHALL b: Bef. 1160 d 1: in (15
King John) d 2: Abt. 1194 d 3: Abt. 1199 d 4: Abt. 1200 d 5: Aft. 1201
Father: Lord Philip DE TATESHALL ...... *2nd Husband of Ms. Iseult
(Isolda) PANTULF: .......... +Mr. Amauri I DE ST. AMAND of Bloxham
Residence: Bloxham, Oxfordshire, England ...... *3rd Husband of Ms. Iseult
(Isolda) PANTULF: .......... +Mr. Henry BISET of Kidderminster d: Bef.
December 11, 1213 Residence 1: Kidderminster, Worcestershire, England
Residence 2: Rockbourne, Hampshire, England ...... *4th Husband of Ms.
Iseult (Isolda) PANTULF: .......... +Mr. Hugh DE MONTPINCON
. 3 Mr. Ivo PANTULF b: Abt. 1082 in Wem, Shropshire, England
2 Mr. Robert PANTULF b: 1046 in Oakeley, Shropshire, England
... + m: Abt. 1065 in Oakeley?, Shropshire, England
. 3 Mr. Robert PANTULF b: 1066 in Oakeley, Shropshire, England
Descendants of William Pantulf (poss. same person as William b. c.1171
above?)
1 Mr. William PANTULF b: Abt. 1193 in Wem, Shropshire, England Arms: Gu.
two bars erm. .. +Ms. Hawise FITZWARIN m: Abt. 1208 in Wem, Shropshire,
England 2 Ms. Elizabeth PANTULF b: Abt. 1211 in Wem, Shropshire, England
2 Ms. Maud PANTULF
... +Lord Ralph BOTELER of Oversley jure uxoris, Baron (Lord) of Weme m:
in (temp Henry III) Residence: Oversley, Herefordshire, England
. 3 Mr. William BOTELER d: 1283
*2nd Wife of Mr. William PANTULF:
.. +Ms. Alice m: Abt. 1218 in Wem, Shropshire, England
Douglas Richardson
< So the Iseult Pantulf who appeared in court in 1265 was her ghost
< perhaps. :-))
< Given that she was suing Robert de Tateshal for land in Breedon,
I'll
Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal)
indicates that the much married Iseult Pantolf died about 1222, citing
as its source Book of Fees, pg. 341. She was certainly living as late
as 1217, on which date she confirmed gifts to Langley which had been
made by her grandfather, William Pantolf, and her grandmother, Burga
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 4:219].
Many decades later, in 1265, a certain Iseult de Tateshale was
involved in a plea of dower [Reference: Close Rolls, 1264-1268, pg.
111]. Complete Peerage suggests that this Iseult was the widow of
Robert de Tateshale, son of Iseult Pantolf [Reference: C.P. 12 Pt. 1
(1953): 649, footnote b (sub Tateshal)]. If Iseult Pantfolf had been
living at this date, which is highly doubtful, there surely would have
been some record of her holding property in dower of her final
husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, who died back in 1241. As far as I
know, no such record exists. So no ghost is involved in the 1265
record. Just a different Iseult de Tateshale.
WJhonson
"Curia Regis Roll 180. Hilary, 51 Henry III, 1267, m. 14 d. Leyc. Isolda, who was the wife of Walter de Tateshale, demands v. Robert de Tateshale a third part of a messuage,...."
It's fairly clear that Isolda is that same person "who was the wife of Walter" not Robert and her demand is against some Robert, now living, as she herself is now living, *in* 51H3 and her demand is for a third part, i.e. her right as widow, etc.
I'm not sure how you can interpret this any other way. Maybe someone can suggest another way now that you've seen, again, the wording.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
> Dugdale (Baronage, vol 1, p 440) provides a clear and primary
> reference which I suspect has been used to establish a "circa 1222"
> death-date for Iseult:
>
> "[Robert de Tateshal] had livery of those lands of Isold Pantulf his
> mother, which had been seized into the King's hands for certain debts
> due to the Crown", citing the Fine Rolls of 7 Henry III, m4.
Here is the text of the Fine Roll entry:
"12 July 7 Henry III: Leicestershire: to the sheriff of
Leicestershire: order to cause the land formerly of Isolda Pantulf,
mother of the King's beloved and faithful Robert de Tattershall, who
is in the King's service with horses and arms by the King's order,
which has been taken into the King's hand by reason of the debt that
Isolda owed the King, to be replevied to Robert without delay, because
he has mainperned before the King that he will satisfy him for that
debt at the Exchequer at the set terms."
MA-R
WJhonson
What it *does* say that is new (to me) is that Robert was called to arms by the King.
Does this mean Robert must be in his majority by this time?
And if so does that mean he was say 18? 21? 25?
At what age did the king order you to go to war with arms ?
Will
mj...@btinternet.com
On 21 Jul., 00:05, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:43 am, tallbloke <r...@tallbloke.net> wrote:
> < So the Iseult Pantulf who appeared in court in 1265 was her ghost
> < perhaps. :-))
>
> Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal)
> indicates that the much married Iseult Pantolf died about 1222, citing
> as its source Book of Fees, pg. 341.
As you note elsewhere, it seems CP may be mistaken in this view. I
have also posted the relevant CFR entry.
> She was certainly living as late
> as 1217, on which date she confirmed gifts to Langley which had been
> made by her grandfather, William Pantolf, and her grandmother, Burga
> [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 4:219].
>
> Many decades later, in 1265, a certain Iseult de Tateshale was
> involved in a plea of dower [Reference: Close Rolls, 1264-1268, pg.
> 111]. Complete Peerage suggests that this Iseult was the widow of
> Robert de Tateshale, son of Iseult Pantolf [Reference: C.P. 12 Pt. 1
> (1953): 649, footnote b (sub Tateshal)].
Herein lies an interesting question. The main problem is that the
suit as abstracted here calls Iseult the widow of *Walter* de
Tateshale. Are we to dismiss this as an error, and if so, why? The
nature of the land-owning ascribed to Walter in the case (ie life
interest rather than in fee) is consistent with his status as a
younger son who predeceased his elder brother.
As an aside, it appears that the elder Robert de Tateshale (d 1249)
may have married twice. His first wife was a sister and coheir of the
Earl of Arundel. She was dead by 1243, when her son Robert was
assigned a share in the Arundel inheritance (Cal. Pat. Rolls, 27
November 1243). According to Dugdale, sub Tateshale, the elder Robert
married secondly a daughter of John de Grey, with whom he acquired an
interest in the manor of "Scandebury in Berkshire"*, circa 1247. In a
post here last December, John Ravilious speculated whether it was
Robert the father or Robert the son, or both, who married a daughter
of John de Grey and acquired this manor. Although Dugdale does not
name the younger Robert's wife, Stirnet calls her Nicole. For what it
is worth, the grandmothers of John de Grey's daughters were named
Iseult and Nicole.
> If Iseult Pantfolf had been
> living at this date, which is highly doubtful, there surely would have
> been some record of her holding property in dower of her final
> husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, who died back in 1241. As far as I
> know, no such record exists.
Arguments from silence are seldom convincing.
MAR
* i.e.Shalbourne, now in Wiltshire. Robert's son and heir, Robert de
Tateshale, demised the manor of "Schaldesbourne" for seven years to
Oliver son of Alan (CPR, 27 July 1253)
WJho...@aol.com
mj...@btinternet.com writes:
For what it
is worth, the grandmothers of John de Grey's daughters were named
Iseult and Nicole.>>
Nice convolutionist.
"the grandmothers of his daughters"
so we can read "...his mother..." or we can read "... his mother-in-law..."
?
Will "the great-uncle of my great-nephew's brother" Johnson
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
mj...@btinternet.com
> In a message dated 7/21/2007 4:05:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>
> mj...@btinternet.com writes:
>
> For what it
> is worth, the grandmothers of John de Grey's daughters were named
> Iseult and Nicole.>>
> Nice convolutionist.
> "the grandmothers of his daughters"
>
> so we can read "...his mother..." or we can read "... his mother-in-law..."
> ?
>
> Will "the great-uncle of my great-nephew's brother" Johnson
My point exactly. John de Grey's mother was named Iseult; his wife's
mother was named Nicole. His daughters therefore had, like most
people, two grandmothers, and these were named Iseult and Nicole.
Given that the grand-daughters are the subject of my post, I wanted to
highlight this point from their perspective, i.e. it would not be
surprising to find the names Nicole and Iseult amongst John de Grey's
daughters.
Cheers, Michael
Douglas Richardson
[Reference: Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams. (1975):
69]. He allegedly died in 1180. Iseult Pantolf married (2nd) Walter
de Tateshale, who died in 1199 or 1200. Iseult Pantolf herself died
1228/1229.
She can't possibly be the same person as the Iseult, widow of Walter
de Tateshale, who was suing for dower rights at Bredon, Leicestershire
in 1267. If this was the case, Iseult Pantulf would have been over a
hundred years old at the time of the 1267 lawsuit. That's not very
likely.
Actually I find there was another later Walter de Tateshale, who had a
park in Bredon, Leicestershire in 1257. See the following weblink for
the details:
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Walter+de+tateshale%22&btnG=Search+Books
I assume it was this Walter's widow who was suing for dower in Bredon,
Leicestershire in 1267.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
tallbloke
news:1185161087.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> Iseult Pantolf's first husband, Hugh de Munpincun, was alive in 1172
> [Reference: Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Fams. (1975):
> 69]. He allegedly died in 1180. Iseult Pantolf married (2nd) Walter
> de Tateshale, who died in 1199 or 1200. Iseult Pantolf herself died
> 1228/1229.
>
> She can't possibly be the same person as the Iseult, widow of Walter
> de Tateshale, who was suing for dower rights at Bredon, Leicestershire
> in 1267. If this was the case, Iseult Pantulf would have been over a
> hundred years old at the time of the 1267 lawsuit. That's not very
> likely.
>
> Actually I find there was another later Walter de Tateshale, who had a
> park in Bredon, Leicestershire in 1257. See the following weblink for
> the details:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Walter+de+tateshale%22
&btnG=Search+Books
>
> I assume it was this Walter's widow who was suing for dower in Bredon,
> Leicestershire in 1267.
Hmm. that link only lets me see the name but not the 1257 date in the
visible snippet of the book. It's interesting for another reason though,
because it gives a Death date of 1335 for the last Robert's widow joan
(Bardolf?) which may be where will got his 1335 death date for Joan
Fitzranulph who I have as dying in 1310.
tallbloke
news:Xns997663C00108...@216.196.109.145:
> Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com> wrote in
> news:1185161087.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>> She can't possibly be the same person as the Iseult, widow of Walter
>> de Tateshale, who was suing for dower rights at Bredon, Leicestershire
>> in 1267. If this was the case, Iseult Pantulf would have been over a
>> hundred years old at the time of the 1267 lawsuit. That's not very
>> likely.
>>
Bad form following up my own post I know,
What's the source for your birthdate for Iseult Pantulf Doug?
another point worth making about that snippet you linked to is that it has
Emma tateshal as the sister of the g.f. of Robert who died 1306.
While we're on the subject of extra Pantulf's,
Sir John de Orreby's aunt Alice was perhaps the second wife of Peter
Corbet who's grandfather was married (according to some websites) to one
Emma Pantulf...
tallbloke
>
> http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Walter+de+tateshale%22&btnG=Search+Books
Ah found the reference to 1257 now, but it has the abbreviation (inq) after
it.
Would that mean it was a post mortem inquisition?
Douglas Richardson
<
< Ah found the reference to 1257 now, but it has the abbreviation
(inq) after
< it.
<
< Would that mean it was a post mortem inquisition?
<
< --
< tallbloke
Yes. That, or an inquisition miscellaneous.
DR
tallbloke
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:34 am, tallbloke <spamt...@tallbloke.net> wrote:
> <
> < Ah found the reference to 1257 now, but it has the abbreviation
> (inq) after it.
> < Would that mean it was a post mortem inquisition?
> Yes. That, or an inquisition miscellaneous.
Ah, so Walter was already dead tthen. Sounds like Iseult had been
gnawing on this bone for ten years. Maybe the determination to get her
dower kept her alive beyond her allotted lifespan. I have a
speculative birthdate of 1277 for her, which would make her 89 at the
lawsuit hearing against Robert not "over 100" as you said.
Incidentally it was for a lot of other property besides parkland if
you check my quote of Clive West's early in this thread.
WJhonson
Maybe the determination to get her
dower kept her alive beyond her allotted lifespan. I have a
speculative birthdate of 1277 for her,>>
Of course you mean 1177, but this sort of exactitude is what gets up into trouble once stirnet and its ilk pick it up and cite is as a fact.
I have a birth *range* for her of 1170 to 1191. This is based on her son Robert de Tateshall being a minor in 1214, and yet old enough by 7H3 to be bearing arms and horses at the order of the King and delivered to him lands once held by his mother, seized into the King's hand because of her debt to him (the King).
So I speculate that Robert could not have been born any later than 1205, nor any earlier than 1193.
And contrary to CP and a certain poster's idle speculation, I see nothing to show that Isolde "widow of Walter de Tateshall" who is suing Robert for her third is anyone other than in fact his own paternal grandmother.
I don't see the reasonableness in speculating that some Isolde-Walter-Robert combination would appear fully-formed out-of-thin-air as it were. However I'm prepared to be proven wrong if for example Robert, in fact had an elder brother let's say named Walter who *also* married some Isolde.
It could even be the case that Robert de Tateshall b 1222/3 himself had a brother Walter who married some Isolde, but we should let the documents speak.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
1257 date in the
visible snippet of the book. It's interesting for another reason though,
because it gives a Death date of 1335 for the last Robert's widow joan
(Bardolf?) which may be where will got his 1335 death date for Joan
Fitzranulph who I have as dying in 1310. >>
I have *her* as dying in 1310 as you state.
On another note, re the death date of Joan [Bardolf] wife of the last Robert who is called variously "3rd Lord Tateshall" (died 30 Jan 1305/6 "aged 18" as his IPM states)
I have *her* as dying between 22 Nov 1306 and 18 Apr 1308 contrary to that snippet, and based on a post by John Ravilous here on 12/13/06 stating essentially that her share in a market was divided again to the heirs of her deceased husband by the later date, and so presumably she herself was dead.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
On Jul 23, 3:02 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< <<In a message dated 07/23/07 10:55:53 Pacific Standard Time,
r...@tallbloke.net writes:
< Maybe the determination to get her
< dower kept her alive beyond her allotted lifespan. I have a
< speculative birthdate of 1277 for her,>>
<
< Of course you mean 1177, but this sort of exactitude is what gets up
into trouble once stirnet and its ilk pick it up and cite is as a
fact.
The evidence indicates that Iseult Pantolfs first husband, Hugh de
Munpincun, was an adult in or before 1172. According to one
historian, he allegedly died in 1180. Complete Peerage suggests he
died c. 1186. Either way this would place Iseult Pantulf's birth as
no later than c.1165/70 at the latest. Iseult's father, William
Pantolf, and her two uncles appear in charters with William's parents
in the year 1166. So a birthdate as early as 1165 for Iseult is
possible.
< I have a birth *range* for her of 1170 to 1191.
Iseult Pantolf's 2nd husband, Walter de Tateshale, died in 1199 or
1200 (as the evidence clearly shows). Their son and heir, Robert de
Tateshale, was thus born no later than 1200 (his mother remarried by
May 1200). If Iseult Pantolf was born as late as 1191, you would have
her giving birth to a child at the age of nine. I believe you've
stretched the chronology to the point of snapping.
> So I speculate that Robert could not have been born any later than 1205, nor any earlier than 1193.
Robert's father, Walter de Tateshale, died in 1199 or 1200. If
you're suggesting that Robert de Tateshale was born five or six years
after his father's death (as seems to be the case), then you're making
things up as you go along. That's not good.
> And contrary to CP and a certain poster's idle speculation, I see nothing to show that Isolde "widow of Walter de Tateshall" who is suing Robert for her third is anyone other than in fact his own paternal grandmother.
The evidence indicates that Iseult Pantolf was living in 1228, but
that she died before c.1228/1229, when her son, Robert de Tateshale,
appears in a lawsuit as grandson and heir of William Pantolf. Had
Iseult been been alive, Robert would have been grandson, but not heir,
to William Pantolf. Robert de Tateshale only became heir to William
Pantolf on his mother Iseult's death. We know from other evidence
that Iseult was dead before 1238, by which date her step-son, John
Biset, had recovered possession of Iseult's dower at Kidderminster.
John Biset died in 1241, as lord of Kidderminster (see Curia Regis
Rolls for example).
As for the Iseult widow of Walter de Tateshale living in 1267, she can
not possibly be the same person as Iseult Pantolf, as Iseult Pantolf
had already been dead for nearly forty years. Also, Iseult Pantolf
would have been approximately 100 years old in 1267, so she is not
likely to have been the lady living in 1267. Rather, the 1267 lady
appears to have been the widow of of a much later Walter de Tateshale,
of Bredon, Leicestershire, who is mentioned in the following record
dated 1257:
"Writ to the sheriff of Leicester to enquire in the full county who
entered the park of Walter de Tateshal in Bredon and hunted there and
took beasts with nets and carried them away. Chester. 12 August 41
Henry III [1257].
The inquisition which followed the above writ indicates that William
de Wodecote and others entered the said park as above [Reference:
Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, 1 (1916): 79].
> I don't see the reasonableness in speculating that some Isolde-Walter-Robert combination would appear fully-formed out-of-thin-air as it were. However I'm prepared to be proven wrong if for example Robert, in fact had an elder brother let's say named Walter who *also* married some Isolde.
>
> It could even be the case that Robert de Tateshall b 1222/3 himself had a brother Walter who married some Isolde, but we should let the documents speak.
In all candor, Will, you've tortured the chronology of Iseult Pantolf
and her family beyond any reasonable estimate. You've displayed a
genuine gullibility and a failiure to understand basic medieval
chronology and evidence. Simply put, you're in way over your head.
> Will Johnson
tallbloke
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Jul 23, 3:02 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> < <<In a message dated 07/23/07 10:55:53 Pacific Standard Time,
> r...@tallbloke.net writes:
> < Maybe the determination to get her
> < dower kept her alive beyond her allotted lifespan. I have a
> < speculative birthdate of 1277 for her,>>
> <
> < Of course you mean 1177, but this sort of exactitude is what gets up
> into trouble once stirnet and its ilk pick it up and cite is as a
> fact.
>
Easy Guys, I'm a rank amateur newbie and I didn't mean to stir(net) things
up here. Will, you're quite right, I meant 1177 and my inability to get
the date from my head through my fingers will keep me out of the
professional sphere :o)
Doug: Fair points have been made on both sides of the debate and anomalies
will remain no matter how persuasive other aspects of the evidence seem to
be on one side or the other.
It's a mystery. maybe she did make 100. I bet a few heirs couldn't wait
for the old bat to pop her clogs :-))
tallbloke
news:mailman.642.11852255...@rootsweb.com:
Subject: Re: Complete Peerage Correction: Parentage of Emme, Joan, &
Isabel de Tateshale
From: WJho...@aol.com
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: furrow...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
In a message dated 12/17/06 9:16:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
furrow...@yahoo.com writes:
<< 2. Robert 1st Baron de Tateshal , Kt. (b.1248;d.1298)
sp: Joan FitzRandolph (b.1248;m.1265;d.1310) >>
Robert was born 1248/9 and I don't believe his exact death year is known.
Could you provide the source?
I don't believe Joan's exact birth year is known and I question this death
year as she is also said to be "still living in 1335".
Will Johnson
WJhonson
The evidence indicates that Iseult Pantolfs first husband, Hugh de
Munpincun, was an adult in or before 1172. According to one
historian, he allegedly died in 1180. Complete Peerage suggests he
died c. 1186>>
I know who your historian is, but parroting what CP considers possible isnt' the same as laying an established fact to bed.
Clemence daughter of William Munpincum "appears to have been a ward of the king" in 1186 and then using that to state that Hugh was dead by then, seems to be a stretch. He "May have been dead" by 1186. But then again he may have lived until as late as 1198 for all we now know.
The Munpincum family needs more work before we can establish a chronology so tightly.
The records of this Isolde are a bit contradictory in how she is named, who she is the widow of, and who is suing her for what. I find it a bit odd for example that a woman who is already the widow of a Baskerville, is calling herself Biset after a prior husband and for no good reason apparently.
And then the actual primary records should be quoted, so we can see exactly what they say and how and not how some historian has chosen to interpret them.
Will
Douglas Richardson
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Jul 23, 8:39 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> <<In a message dated 07/23/07 15:26:28 Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:
> The evidence indicates that Iseult Pantolfs first husband, Hugh de
> Munpincun, was an adult in or before 1172. According to one
> historian, he allegedly died in 1180. Complete Peerage suggests he
> died c. 1186>>
> I know who your historian is, but parroting what CP considers possible isnt' the same as laying an established fact to bed.
I quoted Rosemary Horrox and Mark Ormrod, eds., A Social History of
England (2006): 197-198, who stated that Iseult Pantolf "outlived all
five of her husbands between 1180 and 1223." Parts of this work are
available online through Google.
I assume this means that Iseult Pantolf's first husband, Hugh de
Munpincun, died in 1180. Alternatively, it could mean that she was
married to him by 1180. Both editors of this book are distinguished
historians.
< Clemence daughter of William Munpincum "appears to have been a ward
of the king" in 1186 and then using that to state that Hugh was dead
< by then, seems to be a stretch. He "May have been dead" by 1186.
But then again he may have lived until as late as 1198 for all we now
< know.
Complete Peerage did not make a stretch. I've shown that Hugh de
Munpincun was living in 1772 [Reference: Loyd, The Origins of Some
Anglo-Norman Families (1975): 69]. At his death, Hugh's heir was
evidently Clemence, daughter of William de Munpincun, which Clemence
was a ward of the king in 1186. For Clemence to be a ward of the king
means that Hugh was almost certainly already dead. Complete Peerage
evidently deduced that Clemence daughter of William was Hugh's heir,
on the basis that she is surely the same Clemence de Munpincun who
with her husband, Ralph Tyrrell, was sued for dower at Annington (in
Botolphs), Sussex by Iseult Pantolf [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 7
(1935): 193, 263, 318; VCH Sussex, 6 Pt. 1 (1980): 195-199; Maitland,
ed., Bracton's Note Book, 3 (1887): 316-317]. I understand Complete
Peerage's logic.
Complete Peerage is entirely correct to state that Hugh de Munpincun
"may have been dead in 1186." He almost certainly was.
> The Munpincum family needs more work before we can establish a chronology so tightly.
The Tateshale chronology will give you no better escape from your
lapse in chronology than the Munpincun family has. Iseult Pantolf's
2nd husband, Walter de Tateshale, was the son of Isabel de Gaunt,
which lady was reportedly aged 50 in 1185, or born about 1135
[Reference: Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 646, footnote i (sub
Tateshal), citing Round, Rotuli de Dominabus (Pipe Roll Soc.) , pp. 5,
9, 11]. Iseult Pantolf's husband, Walter de Tateshale, was the third
surviving son of five known sons in the family, he allegedly being one
of
ten children. Given his mother's birthdate and Walter's birth order,
I would place Walter's birth as circa 1165. That's right about the
time Iseult Pantolf would have had to be born if she was married or
widowed to her first husband, Hugh de Munpincun, by 1180, as stated by
Horrox and Ormrod.
< The records of this Isolde are a bit contradictory in how she is
named, who she is the widow of, and who is suing her for what. I find
it a bit
< odd for example that a woman who is already the widow of a
Baskerville, is calling herself Biset after a prior husband and for no
good reason
< apparently.
The records of this woman are not at all contradictory. It's your
lack familiarity with medieval records that has you confused. You're
trying to interpret these records using modern cultural values. This
should be avoided at all costs.
I've found Iseult Pantolf in many records after 1200 alternatively
called Iseult Pantolf, Iseult Biset, and Iseult de Baskerville. There
is nothing inconsistent about her using her maiden name in one
instance, and then reverting to the married name of one of her
husbands in another. This was standard medieval practice for high
born medieval women of that time. This practice continued down to
colonial times. The immigrants, Diana (Skipwith) Dale and Anne
(Baynton) Batte, are two such examples.
I should add that in one footnote of a certain text, I found an
editorial remark that Iseult Pantolf was called Iseult de Ferrers in
one version of the original text. However, the editor showed her
name otherwise in the printed text of the document. I assume this
means that there were two versions of the original text, and that she
was called Iseult de Ferrers in one of them. This might well mean
that Iseult's mother was a Ferrers, and that in one instance she
occurred using her mother's maiden name. Or, it simply could have
been a clerical error. It's really hard to say.
Regardless, it would not surprise me if there is a Ferrers connection
in Iseult's ancestry. I believe the Ferrers family founded the priory
at Breedon on the Hill, Leicestershire, which property was later held
by Iseult's heirs, the Tateshales. VCH Leicestershire indicates that
Iseult's father or grandfather, William Pantolf, held Knossington,
Leicestershire, which property had earlier been held by the Ferrers
family. Likewise, I've found that Iseult Pantolf herself had land
interests at Tutbury, Staffordshire, which was the chief seat of the
Ferrers family. All this is highly suggestive of a Ferrers
connection. I believe the Ferrers angle should be explored further.
< And then the actual primary records should be quoted, so we can see
exactly what they say and how and not how some historian has
< chosen to interpret them.
You're welcome to pull up any the records I've cited and quote them
word for word. In fact, I recommend that you do so. We might all
learn something.
> Will
Tony Ingham
I'm sure that you would. Come on! How about you get fair dinkum. You
are back to your old tricks of quoting citations from secondary sources
and having us assume that you have actually read those primary sources
that are not contained in Google Books.
Now you are making a frank admission that you are a secondary
medievalist, in other words a crumb gatherer.
Ah well "tallboy" might leap for the bait and provide you with primary
sources gratis, but I suggest that he doesn't. Why not wait for a couple
of weeks and I'll do it for you?
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson wrote:
In reply to "tallboy" who wrote
< And then the actual primary records should be quoted, so we can see
exactly what they say and how and not how some historian has chosen to
interpret them.
> You're welcome to pull up any the records I've cited and quote them word for word. In fact, I recommend that you do so. We might all learn something.
>
>
WJhonson
Will
WJhonson
Complete Peerage did not make a stretch. I've shown that Hugh de
Munpincun was living in 1772 [Reference: Loyd, The Origins of Some
Anglo-Norman Families (1975): 69]. At his death, Hugh's heir was
evidently Clemence, daughter of William de Munpincun, which Clemence
was a ward of the king in 1186. For Clemence to be a ward of the king
means that Hugh was almost certainly already dead. Complete Peerage
evidently deduced that Clemence daughter of William was Hugh's heir,
on the basis that she is surely the same Clemence de Munpincun who
with her husband, Ralph Tyrrell, was sued for dower at Annington (in
Botolphs), Sussex by Iseult Pantolf [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 7
(1935): 193, 263, 318; VCH Sussex, 6 Pt. 1 (1980): 195-199; Maitland,
ed., Bracton's Note Book, 3 (1887): 316-317]. I understand Complete
Peerage's logic.
Complete Peerage is entirely correct to state that Hugh de Munpincun
"may have been dead in 1186." He almost certainly was. >>
That's quite a bit of round-robin logic.
If you look carefully through it, you'll see several holes only partly plugged. Still leaves a lot of room for interpretation and mis-interpretation.
Will
WJhonson
I quoted Rosemary Horrox and Mark Ormrod, eds., A Social History of
England (2006): 197-198, who stated that Iseult Pantolf "outlived all
five of her husbands between 1180 and 1223." Parts of this work are
available online through Google.
I assume this means that Iseult Pantolf's first husband, Hugh de
Munpincun, died in 1180. Alternatively, it could mean that she was
married to him by 1180. Both editors of this book are distinguished
historians. >>
I think we can see as well, that it may mean neither.
When I say "she was born between 1160 and 1175" it doesn't mean that either end-point is the exact year, it means "we don't know the exact year but it must have been in This range". So I think the most we can say is that her first husband did not die *before* 1180. I don't think you can, from this quote, assume they were married *by* 1180.
I submit this is what the book is saying.
Will Johnson
WJhonson
Given his mother's birthdate and Walter's birth order,
I would place Walter's birth as circa 1165. That's right about the
time Iseult Pantolf would have had to be born if she was married or
widowed to her first husband, Hugh de Munpincun, by 1180, as stated by
Horrox and Ormrod. >>
They do not state that she was "widowed to her first husband by 1180", so we can set that aside.
As to Walter's birth, his mother being "aged 50" in 1185, which I'm sure you can see is a round number, does not inspire confidence in its extreme accuracy. We've just seen an example of a man aged both 26 and 30 in the same year.
So if we allow Isabel to be born from say 1128 to 1138 then Walter as "third surviving son", if that statement can be held up, could be born anywhere from 1146 to perhaps 1178.
We know he was an adult by 1199 when he is being sued. None of the details of his marriage to Isolde nor the birth of their known son Robert help in narrowing Walter's age.
With what's been presented so far, we cannot get more exact than that.
Will Johnson
mj...@btinternet.com
On 24 Jul., 18:17, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> REVISED POST
>
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Jul 23, 8:39 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > <<In a message dated 07/23/07 15:26:28 Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:
> > The evidence indicates that Iseult Pantolfs first husband, Hugh de
> > Munpincun, was an adult in or before 1172. According to one
> > historian, he allegedly died in 1180. Complete Peerage suggests he
> > died c. 1186>>
> > I know who your historian is, but parroting what CP considers possible isnt' the same as laying an established fact to bed.
>
> I quoted Rosemary Horrox and Mark Ormrod, eds., A Social History of
> England (2006): 197-198, who stated that Iseult Pantolf "outlived all
> five of her husbands between 1180 and 1223." Parts of this work are
> available online through Google.
Ah, good old Google Books, with its snippet views; so much better than
real research. Looking at a small chunk of material from a book
focussing on social history does not allow us to determine the full
context nor does it seem to provide primary sources for its
assertion. Remember primary sources?
> I assume this means that Iseult Pantolf's first husband, Hugh de
> Munpincun, died in 1180. Alternatively, it could mean that she was
> married to him by 1180. Both editors of this book are distinguished
> historians.
So? Firstly, even disinguished historians make mistakes, as you
demonstrate regularly. Furthermore, "I assume" and "it could mean"
are not particularly solid buttresses for the argument you are
determined not to look beyond. Finally, this is your interpretation
of what your source may or may not be saying, and it is poor of you to
twist it into a strong assertion in the way you have. Is this what
scholarship means to you?
> < Clemence daughter of William Munpincum "appears to have been a ward
> of the king" in 1186 and then using that to state that Hugh was dead
> < by then, seems to be a stretch. He "May have been dead" by 1186.
> But then again he may have lived until as late as 1198 for all we now
> < know.
>
> Complete Peerage did not make a stretch. I've shown that Hugh de
> Munpincun was living in 1772
And you quibble at the suggestion that Iseult could have been long-
lived!
> [Reference: Loyd, The Origins of Some
> Anglo-Norman Families (1975): 69]. At his death, Hugh's heir was
> evidently Clemence, daughter of William de Munpincun, which Clemence
> was a ward of the king in 1186. For Clemence to be a ward of the king
> means that Hugh was almost certainly already dead. Complete Peerage
> evidently deduced that Clemence daughter of William was Hugh's heir,
> on the basis that she is surely the same Clemence de Munpincun who
> with her husband, Ralph Tyrrell, was sued for dower at Annington (in
> Botolphs), Sussex by Iseult Pantolf [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 7
> (1935): 193, 263, 318; VCH Sussex, 6 Pt. 1 (1980): 195-199; Maitland,
> ed., Bracton's Note Book, 3 (1887): 316-317]. I understand Complete
> Peerage's logic.
Of course, because it agrees with the view you are determined not to
shift from. All the "evidentlys" and "almost certainlys" won't
wriggle you past the fact that this is a reconstruction and not a
certainty. Let's assume Hugh did die circa 1186. How was he related
to Clemence, daughter of William? If she was his sister, and was a
minor in 1186, then perhaps Hugh (who left no issue) was not very old
at the time of his death. And perhaps his widow, Iseult, was a child
widow. If she were, say, twelve years old in 1186, there's no reason
why she shouldn't still be living in 1267.
> Complete Peerage is entirely correct to state that Hugh de Munpincun
> "may have been dead in 1186." He almost certainly was.
>
> > The Munpincum family needs more work before we can establish a chronology so tightly.
>
> The Tateshale chronology will give you no better escape from your
> lapse in chronology than the Munpincun family has. Iseult Pantolf's
> 2nd husband, Walter de Tateshale, was the son of Isabel de Gaunt,
> which lady was reportedly aged 50 in 1185, or born about 1135
> [Reference: Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 646, footnote i (sub
> Tateshal), citing Round, Rotuli de Dominabus (Pipe Roll Soc.) , pp. 5,
> 9, 11]. Iseult Pantolf's husband, Walter de Tateshale, was the third
> surviving son of five known sons in the family, he allegedly
"allegedly" - is this the standard of proof we are now to accept?
> being one of
> ten children. Given his mother's birthdate and Walter's birth order,
> I would place Walter's birth as circa 1165. That's right about the
> time Iseult Pantolf would have had to be born if she was married or
> widowed to her first husband, Hugh de Munpincun, by 1180, as stated by
> Horrox and Ormrod.
Red flag: a husband's suggested birthdate has nothing to do with his
wife's; this is an especially cheap trick. I know of one case off the
top of my head (William Cantrell and Maude Acklin) where the husband
was born in 1847 and the wife in 1914. According to your logic, the
wife never existed.
> < The records of this Isolde are a bit contradictory in how she is
> < named, who she is the widow of, and who is suing her for what. I find
> < it a bit
> < odd for example that a woman who is already the widow of a
> < Baskerville, is calling herself Biset after a prior husband and for no
> < good reason apparently.
>
> The records of this woman are not at all contradictory. It's your
> lack familiarity with medieval records that has you confused.
Patronising newcomers does not seem to be very collegial - like
refusing to answer questions, rewriting posts to avoid admitting
errors, and sticking to pet theories come what may.
> You're
> trying to interpret these records using modern cultural values. This
> should be avoided at all costs.
>
> I've found Iseult Pantolf in many records after 1200 alternatively
> called Iseult Pantolf, Iseult Biset, and Iseult de Baskerville. There
> is nothing inconsistent about her using her maiden name in one
> instance, and then reverting to the married name of one of her
> husbands in another. This was standard medieval practice for high
> born medieval women of that time. This practice continued down to
> colonial times. The immigrants, Diana (Skipwith) Dale and Anne
> (Baynton) Batte, are two such examples.
>
> I should add that in one footnote of a certain text, I found an
> editorial remark that Iseult Pantolf was called Iseult de Ferrers in
> one version of the original text. However, the editor showed her
> name otherwise in the printed text of the document. I assume this
> means that there were two versions of the original text, and that she
> was called Iseult de Ferrers in one of them. This might well mean
> that Iseult's mother was a Ferrers, and that in one instance she
> occurred using her mother's maiden name. Or, it simply could have
> been a clerical error. It's really hard to say.
Not once you've made you're mind up, apparently.
> Regardless, it would not surprise me if there is a Ferrers connection
> in Iseult's ancestry. I believe the Ferrers family founded the priory
> at Breedon on the Hill, Leicestershire, which property was later held
> by Iseult's heirs, the Tateshales. VCH Leicestershire indicates that
> Iseult's father or grandfather, William Pantolf, held Knossington,
> Leicestershire, which property had earlier been held by the Ferrers
> family. Likewise, I've found that Iseult Pantolf herself had land
> interests at Tutbury, Staffordshire, which was the chief seat of the
> Ferrers family. All this is highly suggestive of a Ferrers
> connection. I believe the Ferrers angle should be explored further.
Go for it!
> < And then the actual primary records should be quoted, so we can see
> < exactly what they say and how and not how some historian has
> < chosen to interpret them.
>
> You're welcome to pull up any the records I've cited and quote them
> word for word. In fact, I recommend that you do so. We might all
> learn something.
Instead of patronising others, why don't you practise this advice
yourself?
The 1267 evidence is that an Iseult, widow of Walter de Tateshale, was
then living. The only person we know of for sure who fits the bill is
Iseult Pantolf. We may speculate about the existance of another
Walter and Iseult, and we may speculate about the death dates of
Iseult Pantulf and her various husbands, but in the end we do not
know. Presenting speculation as fact, and twisting sources and
evidence to fit a pre-fixed point of view are not good examples to
serve this group.
Kind regards, Michael
WJho...@aol.com
primary sources *actually cited and quoted* in it, I don't wonder if perhaps we
have a case here of two different women, both named Isolde or Iseult, marrying
different men.
Not that I don't think it's certainly possible that a woman could live to 80
or so and be married to five men in that time. But, I also think it's
certainly possible that two different women could between them, have five husbands
and be conflated into one simply by repetition and lack of in-depth review.
That won't be fixed by citing more secondary sources. We need to see the
primaries.
Will Johnson
Tony Ingham
> REVISED POST
>
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> On Jul 23, 8:39 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> <<In a message dated 07/23/07 15:26:28 Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:
>> The evidence indicates that Iseult Pantolfs first husband, Hugh de
>> Munpincun, was an adult in or before 1172. According to one
>> historian, he allegedly died in 1180. Complete Peerage suggests he
>> died c. 1186>>
>
>> I know who your historian is, but parroting what CP considers possible isnt' the same as laying an established fact to bed.
>
> I quoted Rosemary Horrox and Mark Ormrod, eds., A Social History of
> England (2006): 197-198, who stated that Iseult Pantolf "outlived all
> five of her husbands between 1180 and 1223." Parts of this work are
> available online through Google.
>
> I assume this means that Iseult Pantolf's first husband, Hugh de
> Munpincun, died in 1180. Alternatively, it could mean that she was
> married to him by 1180. Both editors of this book are distinguished
> historians.
> < Clemence daughter of William Munpincum "appears to have been a ward
> of the king" in 1186 and then using that to state that Hugh was dead
> < by then, seems to be a stretch. He "May have been dead" by 1186.
> But then again he may have lived until as late as 1198 for all we now
> < know.
>
> Complete Peerage did not make a stretch. I've shown that Hugh de
> Munpincun was living in 1772 [Reference: Loyd, The Origins of Some
> Anglo-Norman Families (1975): 69].
partly quoted Loyd, who states in full " In 1172 Hugh de Monte Pincon
held the honour of Montpincon by a service of three knights. (Rec. Hist.
France, xxiii, 694j.)" How does that apply to the Hugh in question?
> At his death, Hugh's heir was
> evidently Clemence, daughter of William de Munpincun, which Clemence
> was a ward of the king in 1186. For Clemence to be a ward of the king
> means that Hugh was almost certainly already dead. Complete Peerage
> evidently deduced that Clemence daughter of William was Hugh's heir,
> on the basis that she is surely the same Clemence de Munpincun who
> with her husband, Ralph Tyrrell, was sued for dower at Annington (in
> Botolphs), Sussex by Iseult Pantolf [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 7
> (1935): 193, 263, 318; VCH Sussex, 6 Pt. 1 (1980): 195-199; Maitland,
> ed., Bracton's Note Book, 3 (1887): 316-317]. I understand Complete
> Peerage's logic.
>
> Complete Peerage is entirely correct to state that Hugh de Munpincun
> "may have been dead in 1186." He almost certainly was.
certainly dead in 1186, why was Isolde's second husband Walter de
Tatershal unable to marry her and father his heir, Robert, before 1193?
We know Robert was under age and the Earl of Arundel had his wardship in
1214.
> < And then the actual primary records should be quoted, so we can see
> exactly what they say and how and not how some historian has
> < chosen to interpret them.
>
> You're welcome to pull up any the records I've cited and quote them
> word for word. In fact, I recommend that you do so. We might all
> learn something.
you are seemingly unable to make head or tail of PRIMARY source
material. Why, otherwise, would you, so disarmingly, encourage Will or
any other of us who wishes to supply the material which I imagine should
be at hand in Salt Lake City.
Not to worry. I've culled a few tasty morsels which will appear from
time to time, not for your benefit but for Will, Tallboy and any one
else you have insulted in your posts on the Iseult Pantulf themes, as
well as any ohers who share an interest in this subject. I'm
exceedingly happy that at long last that you have revealed your true
colo(u)rs for ALL to see.
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson
When and if you have something relevant to say about Iseult Pantolf,
I'm sure we'll all be keenly interested.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
tallbloke
news:mailman.18.118559175...@rootsweb.com:
> I've culled a few tasty morsels which will appear from
> time to time, not for your benefit but for Will, Tallboy and any one
> else you have insulted in your posts on the Iseult Pantulf themes, as
> well as any ohers who share an interest in this subject. I'm
> exceedingly happy that at long last that you have revealed your true
> colo(u)rs for ALL to see.
>
> Tony Ingham
>
>
I'll be visiting Breedon on the Hill on Sunday before I fly out to Brittany
on Monday. I'll take some pics and have a dig around in the churchyard. Not
literally of course...
Any specific requests?
Tony Ingham
Thank you for your reply to my post. I am genuinely pleased to see that
you are interested in seeing the source material I propose to post here
in this forum.
I don't know what your thoughts are on the matter, but I think that it
is high time that the husbands and children of Iseult Pantulf are sorted
out for once and for all.
I fail to see how we, the group, can do this unless we all use a little
give and take.
I have a proposition. How about all the interested parties let the
group know what research materials they have access to for the necessary
time frame. Then perhaps one or hopefully two of us could team up to
cover each of the known marriages.
I'll kick the ball off. I can access (albeit with a 5 hour round trip)
the complete run of Pipe Rolls, Curia Regis Rolls, Fine Rolls and Close
Rolls along with Bractons Notebooks and the Selden Society publications.
I've accessed quite a bit of the relevant material, but as a lot of it
is in Latin shorthand it obviously can't be reproduced in a normal
posting. The only solution is to send it in small dribblets per, say,
MS Word attachment. How does that sound?
What say you. gang?
Tony Ingham
Douglas Richardson
already surveyed the Pipe Rolls, Curia Regis Rolls, Patent Rolls,
Bracton's Notebooks, Selden Society publications, and MANY OTHER
sources regarding Iseult Pantolf and her husbands. For interest's
sake, I've recopied the post below. The post includes several
important additions and corrections to the information on these
families found in the Tateshal and Saint Amand accounts in Complete
Peerage.
I missed checking a few Curia Regis Rolls volumes which were not on
the shelf. I also located but did not post an abstract of an original
charter of Iseult Pantolf in Farnham's Leicestershire Medieval Village
Notes sub Ab Kettleby [FHL Microfilm 804151]. Also, I've since found
a record which confirms that Amaury de Saint Amand, Iseult's fifth and
surviving husband, was in the Holy Land in 1241. Other than that, I
believe my search was pretty complete.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
COPY OF EARLIER POST
Dear Newsgroup ~
As indicated in an earlier post, Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296,
footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953):
648, footnote d (sub Tateshal), states that Iseult Pantolf (died
1228/1238) was married five times:
(1) Hugh de Munpincun, of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex, who may
have been dead in 1186.
(2) Walter de Tateshale (or Tattershall), died 1199 or 1200.
(3) Walter de Baskerville.
(4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died before 4 April
1211.
(5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
The Saint Amand article cited above in Complete Peerage, however,
reverses the order of the 3rd and 4th husbands; otherwise it stands in
agreement with the Tateshal article.
It appears that the original Saint Amand article had the correct order
of Iseult Pantolf's husbands after all, and that the revised order of
husbands given in the Tateshal article is in error. Henry Biset was
actually Iseult's 3rd husband and Walter de Baskerville was her 4th
husband, not the other way around.
Here is the exact train of events:
In 1199 Roger Pantolf was plaintiff against Walter de Tateshale and
Iseult his wife and Eustache, Iseult's sister, for a knight's fee in
Abkettleby and Holwell, Leicestershire [Reference: Early Yorkshire
Charters, 7 (1952): 27, citing Rot. Cur. Regis, i, 432]. Walter de
Tateshale was Iseult Pantolf's 2nd husband. In an subsequent action
dated Trinity term 1200, it is stated that Iseult's husband, Walter de
Tateshale, had died; Iseult's sister is called Constance, not
Eustachia, in this record [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 1 (1922):
196]. Iseult married (3rd) by Trinity term 1200 (date of lawsuit) (as
his 2nd wife) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire and
Rockbourne, Hampshire, son and heir of Manasser Biset. In Trinity
term 1200 Henry and Iseult claimed the third part of lands in
Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex in dower, which lands were formerly
owned by Hugh de Munpincun [Iseult's first husband] [Reference: Curia
Regis Rolls, 1 (1922): 214]. In 1201 Roger Pantolf continued the
lawsuit against Iseult alone regarding 1 knight's fee in Abkettleby
and Holwell, Leicestershire; presumably Iseult's sister, Eustache or
Constance, was then deceased [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 1 (1922):
214; see also Stenton, Pleas before the King or his Justices (Selden
Soc. 67) (1948): 333]. Iseult's husband, Henry Biset, of
Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died shortly before Michaelmas 1208,
when Iseult is named as his widow [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe,
Michaelmas 1208 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 23 (1947): 116, 170, 197-189].
In Michaelmas 1211 Richard de Neville offered 20 palfreys and found
pledges for payment that the king should ask Iseult, widow of Henry
Biset, to take Richard as her husband; however, before the roll was
closed for the year, John Baalun offered 100 pounds to have the lands
of Richard de Neville until the right heir should come, which record
suggests that Richard de Neville had died before he could marry Iseult
[Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1210 (Pipe Roll Soc.
n=2Es. 26) (1951): xxiv, 80, 98]. Iseult married (4th) before
Michaelmas 1211 Walter de Baskerville, of Herefordshire [Reference:
Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1211 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 28)
(1953): 196]. In 1208 Walter gave 3 palfreys for having respite of
the fine of 10 pounds owed to the king and 25 pounds owed to the Jews
[Reference: VCH Warwick, 6 (1951): 240]. In Michaelmas 1211 William
Tilli of Northampton and Robert of Leicester owed the king 3 marks
regarding a legal matter involving Walter de Baskerville and Iseult
his wife [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1211 (Pipe
Roll Soc. n.s. 28) (1953): 196; see also Great Roll of the Pope,
Michaelmas 1212 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 30) (1955): 134]. In the period,
1211-1213, Walter de Baskerville and Iseult Pantolf his wife demised
to Thomas de Neville all their land in Braidon [place uncertain] and
Harlaston, Staffordshire, together with all their right in Tutbury and
Smershill [Middleton and Smerril], Derbyshire [Reference: Landon, ed.,
Cartae Antiquae Rolls 1-10 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 17) (1939): 126-127].
In 1212 Iseult Biset is recorded as holding Rockbourne, Hampshire, as
part of the barony of Henry Biset her late husband [Reference: Book of
Fees, 1 (1920): 75]. Walter de Baskerville died shortly before
October 1213 [References: Rot. et Fin., pp. 500, 512-513; Rot. Lit.
Claus, Vol. i, pg. 162]. In 1214 Iseult widow of Walter de
Baskerville paid 100 marks and 1 palfrey to have possession of her
inheritance and her dower [Reference: Barnes, Great Roll of the Pipe,
Michaelmas 1214 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s 35) (1962): 113; VCH Warwick, 6
(1951): 240. In 1214, and evidently in 1217, as Iseult Biset, she
sued Ralph Tyrrell and Clemence de Munpincun his wife in a plea of
dower regarding half the vill of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex,
which Iseult claimed in right of dower of her 1st marriage to Hugh de
Munpincon [References: Curia Regis Rolls, 7 (1935): 193, 263, 318; VCH
Sussex, 6 Pt. 1 (1980): 195-199; Maitland, ed., Bracton's Note Book, 3
(1887): 316-317]. In 1215 Iseult Biset, former wife of Walter de
Baskerville, is mentioned [Reference: Cal. of Close Rolls, 1204-1224,
pg. 191]. In 1218 Iseult, widow of Walter de Baskerville, was
assigned the land of Cumb in dower [presumably Combe, Gloucestershire
is intended] [References: R.W. Banks, ed., Cartularium prioratus s.
Johannis evangelist=E6 de Brecon (Arch. Cambrensis 4th ser. 14)
(1883):
161, citing Charter Rolls, pp. 286, 289; J.C. Holt, Magna Carta
(1992): 198, citing Rot. de Ob. et Fin. pg. 500; S.D. Church,
Household Knights of King John (1999): 101]. In Michaelmas 1219
Iseult Biset owed 60 marks and 1 palfrey to have an unspecified vill
in Ireland [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Michaelmas 1219 (Pipe
Roll Soc. n.s. 42 (1976): 16]. Iseult married (5th) before 1220 (as
his 2nd wife) Amaury de Saint Amand. In 1220 Sarah widow of William
Biset (Iseult's step-son) sued Iseult and her husband, Amaury de Saint
Amand, for a third part of the vill of Kidderminster, Worcestershire
and for a third part of lands in Rockbourne, Hampshire; Sarah also
sued John Biset (Iseult's younger step-son) for dower in the vill of
Shamblehurst (in South Stoneham), Hampshire [Reference: Curia Regis
Rolls, 9 (1952): 76, 129-130, 239, 247, 293, 324]. Sometime in or
after 1220, in an exchange with her step-son, John Biset, Iseult's
husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, held the entire manor of
Kidderminster, Worcestershire, instead of a third part which would
have been his wife's normal dower. In 1223 land in Leicestershire
held by Iseult Pantolf, mother of Robert de Tateshal, which had been
taken into the king's hands for debt, was ordered to be delivered to
the said Robert [Reference: Early Yorkshire Charters, 7 (1952): 27,
footnote 3, citing Exc. e Rot. Fin., i, 105]. In Michaelmas 1224 her
son, Robert de Tateshale, paid 36 pounds and a half mark for his
mother, Iseult, to have her dower; this was presumably a restoration
of the lands previously taken into the king's hands for her debt
[Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe, Mciahelmas 1224 (Pipe Roll Soc.
n=2Es. 54) (2005): 199]. Iseult Pantulf was last known to be living
16
January 1228, when her 5th husband, Amaury de Saint Amand, was granted
free warren and a fair at Kidderminster, Worcestershire. Amaury held
this property strictly in right of his wife's dower from her Biset
marriage; thus Iseult must have been living when Amaury had this grant
[Reference: Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1225-1232, pg. 175]. Iseult
appears to have died soon afterwards, however, as her son, Robert de
Tateshale, is called grandson and heir of William Pantulf in a lawsuit
dated 1228-1229 [Reference: VCH Rutland, 2 (1935): 54, citing Extracts
from the Curia Regis Rolls, 1211-1231 (Leic. Arch. Soc.), 101].
Iseult was certainly dead before 4 March 1238, when her step-son, John
Biset, was confirmed in the grant of the fair at Kidderminster,
Worcestershire, which fair was formerly granted to Iseult's husband,
Amaury de Saint Amand [Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls,
1226-1257, pg. 235]. John Biset could only have taken possession of
Kidderminster on the death of his step-mother, Iseult. In 1240 John
Biset, then owner of Kidderminster, came to an agreement with the
Prior and Convent of Worcester as to the bounds of their respective
lands on the heath between Wolverley and Kidderminster [Reference:
Annales Monastici (Rolls Ser.), vol. 4, pg. 431; for John Biset's
ownership of Kidderminster, also see Curia Regis Rolls, 16 (1979):
384].
Further Corrections:
John Biset is called "filius Isolde" (that is, son of Iseult) in the
lawsuit cited above dated 1220. John Biset can only have been
Iseult's step-son. John Biset was of age in or before Michaelmas
1220, when he was granted the lands of his older brother, William
Biset, whose heir he was [Reference: Great Roll of the Pipe,
Michaelmas 1220 (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 47 (1987): 191]. Thus, John
Biset was born in or before 1199. Iseult Pantolf, on the other hand,
was still married to her 2nd husband, Walter de Tateshale, as late as
1199, and did not marry John Biset's father, Henry Biset, as her 3rd
husband until about Trinity term 1200. The chronology does not permit
Iseult Pantolf to be the mother of any of Henry Biset's known
children, either William or John, or his probable daughter, Margaret
(wife of Roger la Zouche).
VCH Rutland 2 (1935): 54, footnote 7, states that William Pantulf,
acting for Walter de Baskerville and Isolda his wife, brought an
action in 1202 against the prior of Launde to recover the advowson of
Wardley church, citing Assize R. 613, m. 13. This lawsuit has
clearly been misdated, as Iseult Pantolf did not marry Walter de
Baskerville until after 1211, as stated above.
Horrox & Ormrod, eds., A Social History of England (2006): 197-198
states Iseult Pantolf "outlived all five of her husbands between 1180
and 1223." At the present time, I have no particulars as to when
Iseult's 1st husband, Hugh de Munpincun, died, only that he "may have
been dead" in 1186. Iseult certainly survived her first four
husbands. However, as shown above, Iseult Pantolf must have died in
1228-1229. Thus, she clearly predeceased her final husband, Amaury de
Saint Amand, who survived until 1241 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 11
(1949): 296].
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296, footnote b (sub Saint Amand) states
that Iseult Pantolf was still living in 1267, when she was prosecuting
her rights of dower against her grandson, Robert de Tateshale.
Complete Peerage, Vol. 12 Pt. 1 (1953): 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal)
correctly states that Iseult Pantolf "can not be the Iseult living in
1265 [recte 1267]." The evidence cited above confirms the correction
provided in the Tateshal account in Complete Peerage.
mj...@btinternet.com
> > What say you. gang?
>
> > Tony Ingham
>
> Sure, as long as you don't send any private emails addressed to "YOU
> WANKER" .... =_)
>
> Try to be civil which we know is difficult for a surly old beast such
> as yourself.
Tony, an excellent collegial suggestion, and you're a good judge of
character by the sounds of it too.
I spend a day at the Society of Genealogists and the British Library
about once a week, so any look-ups there, just let me know.
Obviously, I can cover much of the same ground as you can, and
probably the full run of VCH and other county histories, and would be
happy to take on one of the marriages if that suits.
Douglas's excellent resume of what he has to date is very helpful
(although not, in my opinion, persuasive), but presumably he won't
want to help because he's already made up his mind.
I was tempted to follow the sign to Breedon-on-the-hill when I passed
it this morning, but wanted to make sure I got to Bakewell before they
sold out of tarts.
Kind regards, Michael
mj...@btinternet.com
> Tony Ingham <nug...@bordernet.com.au> wrote innews:mailman.18.118559175...@rootsweb.com:
>
> > I've culled a few tasty morsels which will appear from
> > time to time, not for your benefit but for Will, Tallboy and any one
> > else you have insulted in your posts on the Iseult Pantulf themes, as
> > well as any ohers who share an interest in this subject. I'm
> > exceedingly happy that at long last that you have revealed your true
> > colo(u)rs for ALL to see.
>
> > Tony Ingham
>
> I'll be visiting Breedon on the Hill on Sunday before I fly out to Brittany
> on Monday. I'll take some pics and have a dig around in the churchyard. Not
> literally of course...
>
> Any specific requests?
Did I miss out on anything interesting?
MAR
WJhonson
Will Johnson
Tony Ingham
Glad to see I've slipped out of your Killfile.
John Brandon wrote:
>> What say you. gang?
>>
>> Tony Ingham
>>
>
> Sure, as long as you don't send any private emails addressed to "YOU
> WANKER" .... =_)
>
> Try to be civil which we know is difficult for a surly old beast such
> as yourself.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
Tony Ingham
You amaze me. Here I was thinking you didn't have access to any of these
volumes.
Maybe you scanned them too quickly in your haste to get out your next
self-congratulatory post.
Mr. Ingham.
Tony Ingham
near future.
Regards,
Tony
WJhonson wrote:
> Tony, if you wish to send me the full transcriptions of the source material, I will post them to my website.
>
> Will Johnson
>
Tony Ingham
Many thanks for your mail and your kind offer of lookups.
Past Breedon-on-the-Hill then on to Bakewell sounds like a drive I'd
very much enjoy making.
I spent many months of Shaa research ending up in a dead-end at Great
Longstone, not far from Bakewell.
I'll contact you off list as we would'nt like to have John Brandon
fearing we are conspiring against him. Such a sensitive little devil.
Richardson is obviously extremely miffed about the whole situation.
Regards,
Tony
Tony Ingham
Thanks for your mail. Good to know where you stand.
Some comments interlaced below.
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Mr. Ingham appears to have missed my post from last week in which I
> already surveyed the Pipe Rolls, Curia Regis Rolls, Patent Rolls,
> Bracton's Notebooks, Selden Society publications, and MANY OTHER
> sources regarding Iseult Pantolf and her husbands. For interest's
> sake, I've recopied the post below.
I don't find it interesting that you have recopied, I find it repetitious.
> The post includes several
> important additions and corrections to the information on these
> families found in the Tateshal and Saint Amand accounts in Complete
> Peerage.
>
Important to whom apart from yourself?
> I missed checking a few Curia Regis Rolls volumes which were not on
> the shelf. I also located but did not post an abstract of an original
> charter of Iseult Pantolf in Farnham's Leicestershire Medieval Village
> Notes sub Ab Kettleby [FHL Microfilm 804151]. Also, I've since found
> a record which confirms that Amaury de Saint Amand, Iseult's fifth and
> surviving husband, was in the Holy Land in 1241. Other than that, I
> believe my search was pretty complete.
>
Surely it (your search) must have been completely complete! Your innate
sense of modesty is shining through here.
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> COPY OF EARLIER POST
>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> As indicated in an earlier post, Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 296,
> footnote b (sub Saint Amand), with corrections in Vol.12 Pt. 1 (1953):
> 648, footnote d (sub Tateshal), states that Iseult Pantolf (died
> 1228/1238) was married five times:
>
> (1) Hugh de Munpincun, of Annington (in Botolphs), Sussex, who may
> have been dead in 1186.
> (2) Walter de Tateshale (or Tattershall), died 1199 or 1200.
> (3) Walter de Baskerville.
> (4) Henry Biset, of Kidderminster, Worcestershire, died before 4 April
> 1211.
> (5) Amaury de Saint Amand, died 1241.
>
> The Saint Amand article cited above in Complete Peerage, however,
> reverses the order of the 3rd and 4th husbands; otherwise it stands in
> agreement with the Tateshal article.
>
> It appears that the original Saint Amand article had the correct order
> of Iseult Pantolf's husbands after all, and that the revised order of
> husbands given in the Tateshal article is in error. Henry Biset was
> actually Iseult's 3rd husband and Walter de Baskerville was her 4th
> husband, not the other way around.
>
> Here is the exact train of events:
>
I really admire the fact that you were able to piece the EXACT train of
events together. I think you fail to understand that we are not
particularly interested in YOUR version of what transpired, but would
rather that you SHARE the wealth of primary material you seemingly have
at your elbow.
Perhaps then, we lesser beings can work our own way through the muddle
and then hopefully ask for your advice on the more challenging material.
Douglas Richardson
< I think you fail to understand that we are not
< particularly interested in YOUR version of what transpired, but
would
< rather that you SHARE the wealth of primary material you seemingly
have
< at your elbow.
< Perhaps then, we lesser beings can work our own way through the
muddle
< and then hopefully ask for your advice on the more challenging
material.
The topic is Iseult Pantolf. I recommend we stick to that.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป
Douglas Richardson
He is? That's news to me.
mj...@btinternet.com
> Thanks very much Will for your kind offer. I'll get back to you in the
> near future.
Tony
I had a quick scan through the Pipe Rolls yesterday, and it would seem
that Walter de Tateshale was entered in respect of his Leicestershire
lands [ie because of his marriage to Isolda Pantulf] between 1197 and
1200.
If correct, I wonder if this could be used to date their marriage to
circa 1196?
Regards, Michael