RE: allodiales seu allodii consortes

[John Immerseel]

Could someone explain what the term 'allodiales seu allodii consortes' means? Thank you

John

[Peter Stewart]

On 07-May-23 6:45 AM, John Immerseel wrote:
> Could someone explain what the term 'allodiales seu allodii consortes' means? Thank you

Owners or co-owners of allods, i.e. property held free of feudal service.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[John Immerseel]

Peter, Thank you for taking the time to reply. I have added the text of the original 1351 charter below to show the context by which the term was used.
With respect to the use of the term, 'alloidii consortes', does it infer that the two individuals mentioned in the charter, Jan van Liere and Jan van Ghele, jointly owned some alloids, each with the other? If so, does it necessarily follow that the two individuals were related? If not, is the only conclusion that we can draw from the charter that in 1351 Jan van Lier and Jan van Ghele were vassals in the region of Lier, either of the feudal court of Zandhoven or perhaps of the abbey of Nazareth?

Nos Johannes dictus van Lyre miles et Johannes dictus van Ghele allodiales seu allodii consortes notum facimus universis presentas litteras visuris quod in presentia sculteti de Zanthoven ac nostra propter hoc constitutus Walterus dictus van Nasele supportavit monitionem dicti sculteti et nostram sententiam premissis Johanni dictus de Raddere servo domina Abbatisse de Nazareth quedam bona allodiala sita in Pulle iuxta notata et subscripta videlicet [statum] dictum Daschdonc. Item terras dictas [desse acker]. Item peciam terre site iuxta portam Johannis filii ipsius Walteri dictam 'stucke door de heyde'. Item pascuam dictam 'tsaame' pro quomodo censu hereditario quam dictus Walteris perut asservit debebat de easdem bonis dicte domine Abbatisse de multis annis iam diu retroactis et elapsis et eumden Johannem dictis bonis allodialibus imposuit et super ipsis effestucando renunciant. Et in hiis adhibita fuerunt omnia et singula qoud in talibus tenebatur et solebant comiter adhiberi de consuetudine ac de iure cuiuslibet iura semper salvo. Harum testimonio litterarum sigillis nostris ad preces partium sigillatarum. Datum anno domnini m° ccc° quinquagesimo medio mensis martii.

[Peter Stewart]

The two men calling themselves owners of allods were sitting as a
judicial panel with the local magistrate of Zandhoven over a matter
involving a servant of the abbess regarding her allodial property in the
area. There is no evidence in the quoted text to assume that Jan van
Lier and Jan van Ghele were related to each other, or not.

Peter Stewart

[John Immerseel]

Thanks once again, Peter. Your interpretation and insight were very helpful

[Hans Vogels]

Op maandag 8 mei 2023 om 15:06:19 UTC+2 schreef John Immerseel:

Hello John,

As an (van) Immerseel you know probably more on this Belgian family.
Can you explain how Karel van Immerseel came in the possesion of the castel Rameyenhof te Gestel that was previously held by the family Berthout of Berlaar.
Jan van Lyer, miles and lord of Immerseel, was married more then once. What do you know about his wives?

Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

I should have added before that these men would not have identified
themselves as "allodiales" in every occurrence - this would have been
stated in the 1351 charter because they and the official from Zandhoven
were acting as a local allodial court on that occasion.

Jan van Lier also called himself "miles", and in his knightly capacity
he must have held land with feudal service obligations. Presumably he
was lord of Lier at the time and hereditary ducal chamberlain at
Vilvoorde, so that he would have held lands in the Brussels region as
well as near Antwerp.

Peter Stewart

[John Immerseel]

Hi Peter
Jan van Liere did carry the name 'van Liere'. It was a name his family carried since at least 1180, when a charter from that year first identified the family. The question of how they came by that name has perplexed researchers over time. It would suggest that the family was at some time in the distant past lords of Lier. Yet, no document has survived that clearly supports that claim. Members of the van Liere family enjoyed very high positions under the Duke of Brabant. Members of the family were his representatives in Antwerp. Others held several clerical positions, among them, as Abbotts of St. Michaels Abbey in Antwerp, clerics at the Abbey of Tongerlo as well as at other places. They also acted as lawyers for the Berthouts in Mechelen. A great amount of care must be taken in passing along information that exists in historical sources about the 'van Liere' family, or 'de Lyra' or 'de Lira family', as the early charters named them since much is unsupported and in some places pure fabrication.

My present task is to accurately build the knowledge base of this family from 1180 until the beginning of the 14th century by collecting and assembling a catalogue of all the primary charters that appeared during that period in which members of the family, their positions and where they are included, their family relationships are mentioned. In the document, which was the subject of our conversation, it is most likely that Jan van Lier was actually Jan van Lier van Immerseel. If so, he did own land and titles in several places. It is also possible that Jan van Ghele was actually a son of Hendrik IV van Berthout, Heer van Duffle and Geel. There is one source that states that Jan van Lier's father, Arnold, was married to Margaretha van Boechout, who, in a second marriage after Arnold's death, married Hendrik IV van Berthout, heer van Duffel and Geel. This marriage produced a son, Jan. Sources are confusing, inconsistent and unreliable in this regard. However, until I actually see primary documentary proof, I can't support that conclusion. I had hoped that the document you commented on would have shed some light on a possible family relationship. But as you said, there is nothing in the document that proves a family relationship, nor is there anything that proves that there was not. So the hunt for documentation continues to either prove or disprove a possible family relationship. But I am putting this on the back burner for now since it is beyond the scope of the present exercise.

Once we have had an opportunity to study the documents from 1180 until 1300, we will produce a paper for publication. My colleague and I, with my colleague being the principal author, since he is from Belgium and speaks the language fluently and is a brilliant writer and researcher, will shortly be submitting our paper on the Immerseel family from Ekeren for the period 1400 until 1500 based on our research. It is a paper that builds on a paper I wrote in conjunction with another colleague in 2007 that was published in the September-October edition of the Vlaamse Stam. That paper documents the development and genealogy of the van Immerseel family from 1500 until the present day. Once the present research is concluded we will move on to the period 1300 until 1400. It will be a difficult period to deal with, considering the turbulence of that century that has led to many unsupported family relationships, which need to be fully explored in the primary source material before we can provide an accurate and charter-supported history and genealogy of the family for that period.

[Peter Stewart]

There was a knight named Jan van Lier who on 4 November 1350 issued a
charter with two other ducal vassals of Brabant ("Wy, Jan van Lyre,
ridder, Aert van den Broecke van Emken ende Giellys vanden Broecke van
Halle, mannen ons heren tsertoghen van Brabant") noting that Jan van
Immerseel, son of a knight of the same name, intended to marry
Elisabeth, daughter of the knight Jan van Ouden. This Jan van Lier is
supposed to have married (as her first husband) Ida van Berchem. Was he
the man you identify as Jan van Lier van Immerseel, or was there a third
man at this time related to both men in the November 1350 charter?

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Op dinsdag 9 mei 2023 om 02:07:32 UTC+2 schreef John Immerseel:

Hello John,

I'm working on an update of the Berlaar branch of the Berthouts that I want to publish later this year. The Berlaars were lords of Helmond (from 1314) and Keerbergen. Near Berlaar they possessed Hameiden in the early 14th century. Onwards from the '70 the Van Immerseels (Karel and later his brother Jan) are in possession of the castel that later became known as Rameiden. A Jan van Immerseel is known to have married a Maria of Berlaar but she can not be the one who made this transition possible. Even Godfried Croenen is mixes things up. The 14 th century genealogical/historical literature on the Van Immerseels is inconclusive or unlikely. Another strange aspect is the the emergence of the new name Karel that puzzles me.

Would you or your Belgian colleague care to discuss the matter with me, here of off list?

Hans Vogels

[John Immerseel]

At first glance, it appears that Jan van Lier, who is named in the 04-11-1350 document, is the son of the similarly named Jan van Lier in the Zandhoven document. Secondary sources presume that Jan van Lier, who appears in the Zandhoven document, was born about 1320. His son Jan van Liere, named in your 1350 document, was born about 1341, according to early sources. You can see the problem - he would have been about nine years old when he was named in the 1350 document. Obviously, something is amiss , most likely his presumed birthdate. It follows then that there is also a problem with the presumed birthdate of his father.

If it is correct that this second Jan van Lier was the son of the first, documents seem to support the fact that he married Elizabeth den Ouden. However, it does not appear that he married Ida van Berchem. Rather sources tell us that he had a 'natuurlijke' son Henric who married Ysande van Berchem, a 'natuurlijke' daughter of Constant van Berchem. It is possible that Ida is an abbreviation for Ysande. In summary, Peter, there is a lot of confusion for generations of this time period. So until I have the opportunity to study all of the charters from this century, I am urging caution and a healthy dose of suspicion about the information in secondary sources that have been written about this time period. There is no doubt that the 14th century was a very difficult time - the Great Famine had devastating impacts on the population of Northern Europe from 1315 -1322. The Black Death followed it from about 1346 -1352, which continued to reappear about every 15 years after its initial outbreak. The succession crisis followed in Brabant, which began after Dec 5, 1355. During the entire period, a significant cooling of Northern Europe (the beginning of the Little Ice Age) began in the 14th century, which had a significant impact on food and wool production and, consequently, on the populace. It is understandable that in this environment, confusion in record keeping and documentation was a possible outcome of these events. And we shouldn't forget that a great majority of the records in Antwerp were destroyed late in the 16th century, which may have had the potential to help sort out some of the information gaps in the genealogical record.

I am staying non-committal until I have studied the primary sources. As one of my mentors once told me, unless you have seen the record with your own eyes, be very sceptical of what secondary sources tell you.

I am very appreciative, Peter, that you brought this particular record to my attention. If, by chance, you come across any further documents that may be beneficial to me, I would appreciate receiving them.

[John Immerseel]

Hi Hans

I would be very happy to share with you what I know concerning the subject of your question. As you indicate there is substantial amount of confusion in the records that need to be sorted out. I have a few engagements today but I will respond to you later in the day.

[John Immerseel]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 2:07:32 AM UTC-4, Hans Vogels wrote:

Hans
I can discuss this with you either here or off list, however you wish, which ever is best suited for you.

[Hans Vogels]

Op dinsdag 9 mei 2023 om 16:21:32 UTC+2 schreef John Immerseel:

Hello John,

Ik think it's more practical if we continue this off list.
Then I can send you my concept as it stands now.

Hans Vogels

[John Immerseel]

I must admit that I don't know the exact details, but the little that I know comes from secondary sources, not original charters, so I condition my response on that premise. From what I have gathered, it began with the marriage of Karel van Immerseel with Margaretha van Meldert. He is the first of the van Immerseels to be Lord of Ter Hameyden. I don't know, and at this point, I don't know if anyone truly knows how he came by the Lordship. It is possible that the castle came to him as a Lordship, so I understand, through a family relationship with the Berthout family. Karel's mother, again, I haven't yet confirmed this, is reported to be Maria van Berlaer (Berthout), probably according to some, a sister of Thierry (Dirk) van Berlaer and thus a daughter of Lodewyck Berthout, called Berlaer, Lord of Neckerspoel. Theirry, according to some, was the last Lord of Ter Hameyden before Karel van Immerseel.

From what I have been led to understand, until December 3, 1380, Ter Hameyden had remained privately owned, but in that year, its ownership had been assumed by Duke Wenceslaus and his wife Joanna, who then granted it to Karel van Immerseel. [I think that there must be more to this story since it occurs during the succession crisis in Brabant - alliances may have played a role, but I don't know for sure]. By the same act, the town of Gestel was granted to the Lordship of Ter Hameyden, with the exception of that part that belonged to Gertrude van Gestel (This is the property of the other Castle of Gestel, Gestelhof).

Karel's marriage remained childless, and upon his death, Ter Hameyden came to Jan van Immerseel, the eldest son of Karel's brother, the knight Godfried van Immerseel ( who incidentally is one of my direct ancestors).

I hope this is of some help.

[Peter Stewart]

I don't follow the reasoning here - how does it appear that the knight
Jan van Lier in the November 1350 charter is a son of the knight and
allod proprietor Jan van Lier in the March 1350 Zandhoven charter rather
than one and the same man in both documents?

> If it is correct that this second Jan van Lier was the son of the first, documents seem to support the fact that he married Elizabeth den Ouden. However, it does not appear that he married Ida van Berchem. Rather sources tell us that he had a 'natuurlijke' son Henric who married Ysande van Berchem, a 'natuurlijke' daughter of Constant van Berchem. It is possible that Ida is an abbreviation for Ysande. In summary, Peter, there is a lot of confusion for generations of this time period. So until I have the opportunity to study all of the charters from this century, I am urging caution and a healthy dose of suspicion about the information in secondary sources that have been written about this time period. There is no doubt that the 14th century was a very difficult time - the Great Famine had devastating impacts on the population of Northern Europe from 1315 -1322. The Black Death followed it from about 1346 -1352, which continued to reappear about every 15 years after its initial outbreak. The succession crisis followed in Brabant, which began after Dec 5, 1355. During the entire period, a significant cooling of Northern Europe (the beginning of the Little Ice Age) began in the 14th century, which had a significant impact on food and wool production and, consequently, on the populace. It is understandable that in this environment, confusion in record keeping and documentation was a possible outcome of these events. And we shouldn't forget that a great majority of the records in Antwerp were destroyed late in the 16th century, which may have had the potential to help sort out some of the information gaps in the genealogical record.

Again, I can't understand the rationale for supposing that the knight
Jan van Lier of the November 1350 charter, whom you assume to be the son
of a namesake, was the same person as the younger Jan van Immerseel who
intended to marry Elisabeth van Ouden - there were clearly three
different man named Jan in this document: one designated Lier who issued
it and two, father and son, designated Immerseel who occur in it. Of the
latter pair the father, Jan I, was a knight by 30 August 1338 when he
acknowledged receipt of his share of the subsidy distributed to Brabant
lords engaging to join Edward III in his invasion of France. His surname
in this document, extant in the original, is "Ymmersele" but on his seal
he is named as Jan van Lier lord of Wommelgem. It is usually stated that
he was a son of Godevaart van Lier, probably castellan of Wommelgem, and
that his first wife Catharina van Leefdaal was mother of his namesake
son Jan II (who married Elisabeth van Ouden) as well as two other sons,
Godevaart and Karel.

>
> I am staying non-committal until I have studied the primary sources. As one of my mentors once told me, unless you have seen the record with your own eyes, be very sceptical of what secondary sources tell you.

One of the main primary sources for Brabant vassals at this time is Duke
Jan III's book of feudatories compiled around 1350. In this there is a
Jan van Lier, son of Nicolas, who was then in Zealand. I can't see a
basis for postulating a second knight Jan van Lier active at the same
time who was his son. As far as I can tell (from secondary sources) Jan
van Lier son of Nicolas died in 1371 and was succeeded by a son named
Wouter (died 1414), whose mother was Ida van Berchem.

Can you please cite the early sources according to which a Jan van Lier
had a son of the same name born about 1341?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 11-May-23 2:31 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> One of the main primary sources for Brabant vassals at this time is Duke
> Jan III's book of feudatories compiled around 1350. In this there is a
> Jan van Lier, son of Nicolas, who was then in Zealand.

My spelling is disgraceful - I meant Zeeland, he was not in Denmark.

> I can't see a
> basis for postulating a second knight Jan van Lier active at the same
> time who was his son. As far as I can tell (from secondary sources) Jan
> van Lier son of Nicolas died in 1371

He was reportedly killed at the battle of Baesweiler on 22 August 1371.

[John Immerseel]

Hi Peter.
Let me premise my remarks by saying that I am not an expert on the Immerseel (van Liere) family of this time period. I haven't reached this part of my study yet.

With respect to your first comment whereby you asked, "I don't follow the reasoning here - how does it appear that the knight

> Jan van Lier in the November 1350 charter is a son of the knight and
> allod proprietor Jan van Lier in the March 1350 Zandhoven charter rather
> than one and the same man in both documents?"

The simple answer is that I don't know. The information about the Immerseel family comes to us from secondary sources written centuries after the fact (16th - 19th). They are incomplete; some are based on fraudulent charters created by someone in Brabant, especially in the 16th century, to give a family or individual from that century a noble ancestor for which they were paid handsomely; in some cases, they arrived at conclusions by applying indirect logic because no primary documents were available; often these conclusions were found to be faulty. In addition, these writers seldom identified the charters from which the information was gleaned. With that said, it is entirely possible that both men were actually one and the same. Until I study the original charters from that time period I can't arrive at any other conclusion.

With respect to your second question concerning the logic of the subject, I can only reiterate my last point and add that sometimes the logic is immediately not apparent.

Let me start at the beginning. A document dated January 1277 (Old Date - 1278 New Date) confirms that the Lordship of Wommelgem was given by John, the first Duke of Brabant, as a fief to John de Lyra, knight, son of Arnold (I) de Lyra in the year 1277. That Lordship also contained a large area of land that was known as Immerseel (Ymmersele). In 1282, John de Lyra built a castle - the Kasteel van Immerseel on this land. His descendants began to use the family name van Immerseel (Ymmersele) but not exclusively and not immediately. Sometimes the charters mention them as - Van Lier van Ymmersele and sometimes van Lier, heer van Wommelgem and sometimes van Ymmersele. It's in reference to the heer van Wommelgem that we know that they were, in fact, van Immerseel (Ymmersele). However, Jan had a brother Arnold II van Lier, whose descendants retained the name van Lier as Arnold did not share in the Lordship of Wommelgem or the land of Immerseel (thereby the seal you refer to above). From this point forward, we have two separate lineages - van Liere and van Immerseel, with, for a couple of generations, the family van Immerseel continuing to be referred to as van Lier. This continued on well into the 16th century when we see some individuals being called van Lier van Immerseel. So, if it is confusing, it definitely is. The NIcholas van Lier that you mention in 1371 was a descendant of Arnold II. Because there were two separate branches, the possibility of the name Jan van Lier appearing in both branches is very high. The name Jan reappears generation after generation in both branches. In the middle of the 14th century, for example, we see three brothers, Godfried van Immerseel, Jan van Immerseel and Karel van Immerseel; each fathered a natural son named 'Jan'. In addition to fathering a 'natural' son 'Jan, Godfried also had a legitimate son he also named Jan. So in that immediate generation, we know of at least four men named 'Jan' just in one branch with one branch sometimes still being referred to a s van Lier.

You also asked, Can you please cite the early sources according to which a Jan van Lier

had a son of the same name born about 1341?

As I haven't made a study of this time period yet, I don't have any charters that I can refer you to. There are, however, a couple of sources that you could try - both by J. Th. De Raadt, Itegem et ses Seigneurs, 1894, p. 55; and Keerbergen et ses Seigneurs. The reference I have comes from a private study completed by a distant cousin of mine who passed away a few years ago and whose references I do not have. You might also try the following, I have not consulted them yet, but they may contain some information that you may find useful.

See S.A.A./ Antw.Archievenblad 27/ pag.150/ 151 and 152/ Act of 20-Febr.-1418/1419/ f°54 V°/ From Privilegiekamer, "The old register metten berderen"; in which it is determined how the family ties were arrived at / JAN den OUWEN / Oom / Voerbedde and Nabedde. Son of Hr.v.Immerseel Joannes (Jan) van Lier Schout/Antw.1384 van IMMERSEEL (v.Lier/v.Immerseel) Hr.v.Wommel. (see IX.1) and Vr.v.ter Elst Catharina van LEEFDAEL (possibly Maria ?).
Married (1) on 04-11-1350, church marriage on 04-11-1350 to Elisabeth van den OUDEN (van Ouden), born Hypot.1330. Lives 1350. Died ..-..-1374. Was still alive 1374. From the history of Grobbendonck by Goetschalcx S.A.A./ Bib. 1520, Part II pag.211.... According to a note left to us by the late Canon de Ridder, she was still alive in the year 1374. (1) State Archives in Brussels Spechtboek fol.43. Marries Jan van Immerseel. See Emiel Steenackers "Het laethof van Immerseel" in Boom, page 27.
See also S.A.A./BIB. "History of Grobbendonck" Part II, page 209, by Goetschalcx. 1355-6-November (vi days after Alreheylygen). Daughter of Jan van den OUDEN (van Ouden), Knight., and Wife v. N.N.
Married (2) to Concubine v.Jan, N.N. Concubine van Jan van Immerseel [2397], Lord of Meysse, from which a bastard son Hendrik van Immerseel was born.

Once I complete my present study, I will look at the 14th-century records in more detail. I may be able to provide more information at that time. If I have not answered your question to your satisfaction please let me know, and I will try again.

On another note, could you provide me with some insight into the following document dated January 1239 (old date - 1240 new date) concerning "Arnoldus de Lyra , canonicus beate Marie et, decanus Christianitis in Antwerpia"?

Could it have been possible for Arnold to have been married either before, after, or during the time he held the position of "canonicus beate Marie et, decanus Christianitis in Antwerpia" in this century? or was it necessary for him to have been absolutely celibate? Thank you.

[Antwerp] January 1239
Act by Arnoldus de Lyra , canonicus beate Marie et, decanus Christianitis in Antwerpia, notifies and confirms that the Abbey of Antwerpen (S . Michel) has purchased from an individual named Beda, two pieces of land located in Antwerp in the "Dekenstraat"
Uniuersis presentes litteras uisuris Arnoldus de Lyra, canonicus beate Marie, et, decanus Christianitatis in Antwerpia, salutem in Domino. Notum facimus uniuersitati uestre quod abbas et conuentus Sancti Michaelis in Antwerpia emerunt contra Bedam, uxore sua et liberis suis consentientibus, duos mansus allodii, sitos in platea, que dicitur Dekenstrate, in quibus idem Beda manet, pro quatuordecim libris Louaniensis monete. Quo facto, prefatus Beda cum libris suis coram conuentu supradicto et scabinis Antwerpiensibus in altari sancti Michaelis, ad opus prefate ecclesie in elemosinam dictam terram optulit et reportauit. Iidem uero abbas et conuentus predicto Bede et suis successoribus prefatos mansos contulerunt, hereditarie possidendos, pro uiginti solidis Louaniensibus annuatim, ipsis soluendis, conditione tali adiecta, in festo beati Iohannis Baptiste X solidos, in festo beati Stephani reliquos decem solidos annuatim ipsis soluere tenetur. Preterea si predictus Beda domos ,suas, in mansis predictis sitas, in posterum uendere uoluerit, poterit easdem sub conditione predicta. Et ne super hoc in posterum, calumpnia posset oriri, littere presentes sigillo nostro necnon et sigillo opidi Antwerpiensis, ad petitionem partium predictarum, sunt roborate. Testes frater L., prior, frater W., supprior, frater Ar., quondam abbas, et conuentus, Willelmus Draco, Hugo Tuckelant, scabini Antwerpienses, Salomon, clericus, filius ipsius Bede, et Henricus de Molendino, Ar. Bonne et Nicholaus Tote. Actum anno Domini M°CC°XXXIX° mense ianuario.

[Peter Stewart]

I'm just as mystified about why you wrote "At first glance, it appears

that Jan van Lier, who is named in the 04-11-1350 document, is the son

of the similarly named Jan van Lier in the Zandhoven document." How can
you not know what aspect of your own first glance indicated a father-son
relationship?

> With respect to your second question concerning the logic of the subject, I can only reiterate my last point and add that sometimes the logic is immediately not apparent.
>
> Let me start at the beginning. A document dated January 1277 (Old Date - 1278 New Date) confirms that the Lordship of Wommelgem was given by John, the first Duke of Brabant, as a fief to John de Lyra, knight, son of Arnold (I) de Lyra in the year 1277. That Lordship also contained a large area of land that was known as Immerseel (Ymmersele). In 1282, John de Lyra built a castle - the Kasteel van Immerseel on this land. His descendants began to use the family name van Immerseel (Ymmersele) but not exclusively and not immediately. Sometimes the charters mention them as - Van Lier van Ymmersele and sometimes van Lier, heer van Wommelgem and sometimes van Ymmersele. It's in reference to the heer van Wommelgem that we know that they were, in fact, van Immerseel (Ymmersele). However, Jan had a brother Arnold II van Lier, whose descendants retained the name van Lier as Arnold did not share in the Lordship of Wommelgem or the land of Immerseel (thereby the seal you refer to above). From this point forward, we have two separate lineages - van Liere and van Immerseel, with, for a couple of generations, the family van Immerseel continuing to be referred to as van Lier. This continued on well into the 16th century when we see some individuals being called van Lier van Immerseel. So, if it is confusing, it definitely is. The NIcholas van Lier that you mention in 1371 was a descendant of Arnold II. Because there were two separate branches, the possibility of the name Jan van Lier appearing in both branches is very high. The name Jan reappears generation after generation in both branches. In the middle of the 14th century, for example, we see three brothers, Godfried van Immerseel, Jan van Immerseel and Karel van Immerseel; each fathered a natural son named 'Jan'. In addition to fathering a 'natural' son 'Jan, Godfried also had a legitimate son he also named Jan. So in that immediate generation, we know of at least four men named 'Jan' just in one branch with one branch sometimes still being referred to a s van Lier.
>
> You also asked, Can you please cite the early sources according to which a Jan van Lier
> had a son of the same name born about 1341?
>
> As I haven't made a study of this time period yet, I don't have any charters that I can refer you to. There are, however, a couple of sources that you could try - both by J. Th. De Raadt, Itegem et ses Seigneurs, 1894, p. 55; and Keerbergen et ses Seigneurs. The reference I have comes from a private study completed by a distant cousin of mine who passed away a few years ago and whose references I do not have. You might also try the following, I have not consulted them yet, but they may contain some information that you may find useful.

My approach to research is to start from primary sources as close as
possible to the time and place in question, using secondary material
only as a necessary finding aid. I would not recommend consulting
post-medieval works unless these convey information from sources that
have been lost, and then only with great caution. Identifications made
by modern historians can be a useful directive - or corrective - aid
when the researcher has more informaiton at hand than can be readily
accessed, but again only when used with caution.

> See S.A.A./ Antw.Archievenblad 27/ pag.150/ 151 and 152/ Act of 20-Febr.-1418/1419/ f°54 V°/ From Privilegiekamer, "The old register metten berderen"; in which it is determined how the family ties were arrived at / JAN den OUWEN / Oom / Voerbedde and Nabedde. Son of Hr.v.Immerseel Joannes (Jan) van Lier Schout/Antw.1384 van IMMERSEEL (v.Lier/v.Immerseel) Hr.v.Wommel. (see IX.1) and Vr.v.ter Elst Catharina van LEEFDAEL (possibly Maria ?).
> Married (1) on 04-11-1350, church marriage on 04-11-1350 to Elisabeth van den OUDEN (van Ouden), born Hypot.1330. Lives 1350. Died ..-..-1374. Was still alive 1374. From the history of Grobbendonck by Goetschalcx S.A.A./ Bib. 1520, Part II pag.211.... According to a note left to us by the late Canon de Ridder, she was still alive in the year 1374. (1) State Archives in Brussels Spechtboek fol.43. Marries Jan van Immerseel. See Emiel Steenackers "Het laethof van Immerseel" in Boom, page 27.
> See also S.A.A./BIB. "History of Grobbendonck" Part II, page 209, by Goetschalcx. 1355-6-November (vi days after Alreheylygen). Daughter of Jan van den OUDEN (van Ouden), Knight., and Wife v. N.N.
> Married (2) to Concubine v.Jan, N.N. Concubine van Jan van Immerseel [2397], Lord of Meysse, from which a bastard son Hendrik van Immerseel was born.
>
> Once I complete my present study, I will look at the 14th-century records in more detail. I may be able to provide more information at that time. If I have not answered your question to your satisfaction please let me know, and I will try again.
>
> On another note, could you provide me with some insight into the following document dated January 1239 (old date - 1240 new date) concerning "Arnoldus de Lyra , canonicus beate Marie et, decanus Christianitis in Antwerpia"?
>
> Could it have been possible for Arnold to have been married either before, after, or during the time he held the position of "canonicus beate Marie et, decanus Christianitis in Antwerpia" in this century? or was it necessary for him to have been absolutely celibate? Thank you.
>
> [Antwerp] January 1239
> Act by Arnoldus de Lyra , canonicus beate Marie et, decanus Christianitis in Antwerpia, notifies and confirms that the Abbey of Antwerpen (S . Michel) has purchased from an individual named Beda, two pieces of land located in Antwerp in the "Dekenstraat"
> Uniuersis presentes litteras uisuris Arnoldus de Lyra, canonicus beate Marie, et, decanus Christianitatis in Antwerpia, salutem in Domino. Notum facimus uniuersitati uestre quod abbas et conuentus Sancti Michaelis in Antwerpia emerunt contra Bedam, uxore sua et liberis suis consentientibus, duos mansus allodii, sitos in platea, que dicitur Dekenstrate, in quibus idem Beda manet, pro quatuordecim libris Louaniensis monete. Quo facto, prefatus Beda cum libris suis coram conuentu supradicto et scabinis Antwerpiensibus in altari sancti Michaelis, ad opus prefate ecclesie in elemosinam dictam terram optulit et reportauit. Iidem uero abbas et conuentus predicto Bede et suis successoribus prefatos mansos contulerunt, hereditarie possidendos, pro uiginti solidis Louaniensibus annuatim, ipsis soluendis, conditione tali adiecta, in festo beati Iohannis Baptiste X solidos, in festo beati Stephani reliquos decem solidos annuatim ipsis soluere tenetur. Preterea si predictus Beda domos ,suas, in mansis predictis sitas, in posterum uendere uoluerit, poterit easdem sub conditione predicta. Et ne super hoc in posterum, calumpnia posset oriri, littere presentes sigillo nostro necnon et sigillo opidi Antwerpiensis, ad petitionem partium predictarum, sunt roborate. Testes frater L., prior, frater W., supprior, frater Ar., quondam abbas, et conuentus, Willelmus Draco, Hugo Tuckelant, scabini Antwerpienses, Salomon, clericus, filius ipsius Bede, et Henricus de Molendino, Ar. Bonne et Nicholaus Tote. Actum anno Domini M°CC°XXXIX° mense ianuario.

Clerics were forbidden to marry or to remain in pre-existing marriages
from the 11th century onwards, formalised by canons of the first Lateran
council in the early-12th century. A widower or someone whose marriage
had been annulled could be ordained on the condition applying to others
of remaining celibate. In this case Arnold as a canon and dean of his
chapter could not have had a wife at the time of his January 1239
charter, if ever. There are instances of men holding higher offices than
this leaving clerical orders to marry, but these are rare and not to be
safely postulated without documented evidence.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 12-May-23 8:35 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Clerics were forbidden to marry or to remain in pre-existing marriages
> from the 11th century onwards, formalised by canons of the first Lateran
> council in the early-12th century. A widower or someone whose marriage
> had been annulled could be ordained on the condition applying to others
> of remaining celibate. In this case Arnold as a canon and dean of his
> chapter could not have had a wife at the time of his January 1239
> charter, if ever.

I should explain that I prefer to give dates unqualified as they appear
in documents - in this case, January 1239 = 1240 new style, and in the
Zandhoven charter discussed upthread the dating is mid-March 1350 = 1351
new style.

[John Immerseel]

Thank you for the insight into the question of whether clerics were permitted to marry. Your response is helpful. Also, thank you for your comment concerning dates.

You also provided the following comment concerning Jan van Liere. I'm just as mystified about why you wrote, "At first glance, it appears

that Jan van Lier, who is named in the 04-11-1350 document, is the son of the similarly named Jan van Lier in the Zandhoven document." How can
you not know what aspect of your own first glance indicated a father-son relationship?

You are absolutely correct to question my statement. I'm afraid that I didn't do a credible job with respect to your earlier question. By way of the following, I have attempted to provide a more complete answer, although I am not sure that I have cleared up the mystery. I will do my best to provide a more informed comment.

First, let me preface again that from my perspective, the secondary sources authored separately by Butkens and Stockmans raise some questions that need further investigation. You may see something different in the information provided, and certainly, I am open to any thoughts or criticisms that you may have.

Let me begin with Jan (I) van Lier. This is the person who received the grant of the Lordship of Wommelgem in January 1276, which also contained the land of Immerseel. A hypothetical birth date of 1258 has been attributed to him. Considering that he received the Lordship in January 1276, he would have been about 18 years of age. I find this to be unrealistic. He must have been born at an earlier date. J.B Stockmans mentioned Jan (I) van Lier as the owner of the 'hof van Lier' in Santhoven in 1296. He is credited with two sons, Godfried and Arnold.

Godfried was killed during the attack on Mechelen in 1303.

Arnold has been given a hypothetical birth date of about 1289 and died in 1333. He was reportedly married to Margaretha van Boechout. Arnold and Margaretha had a son Jan (II) van Lier.

Jan (II) van Lier (van Immerseel) married Elizabeth den Ouden. He has been given a hypothetical birth year of 1320 and a year of death of 1384. He had a son, Jan (III) van Lier who married Ysandra van Berchem. Jan (III) van Lier is credited with a birth year of 1341.

I believe Jan (I) van Lier was born too early to be mentioned in the 1350 document. He also did not have a son named Jan, according to the secondary sources. That would mean the Jan van Lier mentioned in 1350 was Jan (II) van Lier. We can eliminate his son Jan (III) van Lier as being mentioned in the 1350 document, because he would have been too young, a boy only about nine years old.

Going back to your original comment and question:

"There was a knight named Jan van Lier who on 4 November 1350 issued a
charter with two other ducal vassals of Brabant ("Wy, Jan van Lyre,
ridder, Aert van den Broecke van Emken ende Giellys vanden Broecke van
Halle, mannen ons heren tsertoghen van Brabant") noting that Jan van
Immerseel, son of a knight of the same name, intended to marry
Elisabeth, daughter of the knight Jan van Ouden. This Jan van Lier is
supposed to have married (as her first husband) Ida van Berchem. Was he
the man you identify as Jan van Lier van Immerseel, or was there a third
man at this time related to both men in the November 1350 charter?"

So I am therefore puzzled. The information in this document clearly notes that "Jan van Immerseel (van Lier), son of a knight of the same name, intended to marry Elizabeth, daughter of the knight Jan van Ouden". Given the details contained in this charter, we would have to assume that either his father was Jan (I) van Lier in the above scenario (which seems doubtful considering that he would have been extremely old) or that Jan (I) van Lier had a third son named Jan van Lier that would have been a brother to Godfried and Arnold perhaps suggesting that Jan (I) van Lier was married twice and that a second marriage was never recorded; and that this Jan van Lier (van Immerseel) was the father of Jan (II) van Lier who intended to marry Elizabeth van Ouden. The other option is that there was an error that recorded the names of the sons born to Jan (II) van Lier and Margaretha van Boechout, Godfried and Arnold; perhaps the son named Arnold was incorrectly named by the secondary sources; perhaps they wrote Arnold when they should have wrote Jan. The last option may be the most reasonable one to consider.

I hope the above provides some thoughts for your consideration, although I think that it raises more questions than answers.

[Peter Stewart]

It seems to me that you are making unnecessarily heavy weather out of the available evidence. The charter I quoted from dated 4 November 1350 clearly was co-issued by a Jan van Lier who was NOT the same as the Jan van Immerseel named in it whose son of the same name was to marry Elisabeth van Ouden. There is one Jan van Lier noted in the feudatory list of Duke Jan III compiled ca 1350, and his father's name was Nicolaus. This Jan van Lier had been granted land at Perk that apparently came to him with the hereditary chamberlainship at Vilvoorde. He was apparently the head of the lordly family of Lier. I can see no reason at all why he should not be identified also with the man named as an allod proprietor in the Zandhoven adjudication dated mid-March 1350 (=1351). Jan I van Immerseel, father of the namesake husband of Elisabeth van Ouden, was evidently an agnatic cousin or otherwise a relative of this man, still using the patrilineal surname van Lier along with the newer designation van Immerseel as well as identifying himself as lord of Wommelgem. His father was reportedly Godevaart van Lier who had probably been castellan of Wommelgem. I don't know how Godevaart van Lier was related to Nicolaus van Lier, but the connection between them was probably not distant. Any alternative to this scenario would need to start from explaining why a third knight Jan van Lier also active around 1350 was not even mentioned in Duke Jan III's feudatory book.

Peter Stewart

[John Immerseel]

Thank you, Peter, for your perspective and assistance. It has been of great help.