The Coningsby family
Robin Wood
this is my first post so pl excuse any mistakes.
I run a one name study on the Coningsby family, whose ancestry I have
traced back to 1180. They are first recorded as descending from Roger
Baron de Coningsby in the time of John 1st. I have spent some
coniderable time trying to settle a problem I have come accross which
is that at the time Baron Roger and his Son John de Coningsby were
said to have been in occupation of Coningsby Castle (Probably a manor
house) the family of Marmion's were said to be the lords of Coningsby
and Scrivensby also Horncastle. I have a theory that perhaps Roger
"of" Coningsby was in fact a minor Marmion hence the possibilty of him
occupying Coningsby, but other sources infer that they were indeed of
Saxon descent whereas the Marmions came over with the Normans.
Coningsby Decendants did indeed have several dealings with the
Marmions to the point that I have the following theory. Can anyone
throw any light on the subject
Robin
1) Looking at the Doomsday book for Coningsby we have Æthelstan; Ulf;
Robert, Drogo's man; and Robert Despenser as land owners, but NO
Roger de Coningsby is cited. Quite clearly there was no family there
with a Coningsby name at that time, however a Roger Marmion held lands
at Coningsby
2) Robert de Marmion, son of Roger Marmion, held Winteringham,
Willingham, Coningsby, etc. in Co. Lincoln in 1115-1118, and he
rendered account for relief of his father's lands in 1130.
3) The lordships of Tamworth (Warwickshire), Winteringham and
Coningsby were held by Robert de Marmion in 1217 and before that held
by Robert de Marmion in 1115 – 1118, together with Scrivelsby,
Winteringham and Willingham all in Lincolnshire. They continued to
hold the estates through to 1180, they therefore owned the estates of
Coningsby continuously from 1115 to at least l224 (37); how then could
our Roger Coningsby and his son John also hold them at the same time?
Note! The Marmions were a powerful Norman Family hailing from Fontenay
– au – Marmion near Falais (Normandy). During the time of William the
Conqueror, who also lived in Normandy, William and the Marmions had a
common ancestor, Rollo the Granger. The Marmions acted as Champions to
the Dukes of Normandy and when William arrived in England, he did so
with his Champion, Sir Robert Marmion the Lord of Fontenay. For his
services Robert received grants of land in Lincoln, Gloucester,
Warwick and Hereford, this also included Tamworth Castle. In England,
as in Normandy, Robert acted as the King's Champion.
There is a view that the Marmions were the same family as the De-
Spensers (The Kings Steward) for “Champion” can be associated with
“Steward”; however that has recently been debunked. Clearly whilst it
is known the Marmions held Coningsby in 1115, there was no record
shown of it in 1086.
4) The first Robert Marmyon, Lord of Fontney, in Normandy has also
been referred to as Roger, although this is later refuted as a
clerical error (there being no evidence to back up a Roger!) It is
thought that he was born about 1040 and was for his services to the
Conqueror granted substantial lands in Lincolnshire including
Scrivelsby (near Horncastle). Both fore names are French and sometimes
transposed and used as one name.
5) Roger Marmion, born about 1133, married Maud de Beauchamp about
1153 daughter of Sir William de Beauchamp, and Maud de Brause and
eventually died about 1181. Roger Coningsby who was alive 1296 - 1316
and probably slightly earlier, put himself under the protection of Guy
de Beauchamp, 2nd Earle of Warwick,(5) (Earl of Warwick, Knight, born
1278, Warwickshire, England, died 10 Aug 1315.) “his kinsman, and was
steward of his house”. Guy de Beauchamp is described as being a
“Kinsman”, although I have been unable to trace the “kinship”, but
there is clearly some relationship as yet undiscovered. Did Robert
Marmion (born 1133) have a brother Roger who was Roger of Coningsby?
Here is a clear link to the Beauchamp family by the Marmions so we
have evidence emerging of a Coningsby relationship via the Marmions?
Guy de Beauchamp was a direct descendant of Sir William and Maud de
Beauchamp.
6) Robert Marmion, the Younger, born about 1190, of Lincolnshire,
England, died about 1241/42 known as Robert the younger, to
distinguish him from his elder half-brother of the same name. On 15
May 1218, he made a fine with the King to pay an amount for having the
custody of the castle of Tamworth and the lands of which Robert his
father had died seised, to hold until Robert, the elder, his brother,
should make his peace with the King and recover his father's lands in
England, in which event he was to retain the vills of Winteringham and
Coningsby in. Lincolnshire. On 26 Nov 1224, his right to 5 hides of
land in Quinton and to the manor of Berwick was acknowledged by his
half-brother, Robert the elder, to whom he granted 2 carucates (240
acres) of land in Coningsby. They clearly owned Coningsby during the
period 1115 through to 1224 and beyond.
7) There are conflicting suggestions about the Marmions in
Winteringham. Some suggest that Robert Marmion’s son Roger was born
at Winteringham “about 1065”. Clearly it would be after the Battle of
Hastings, and if Roger was born at Winteringham it would be more
likely to be 1067 or later, as William took some while to reach London
and was only crowned there on Christmas Day 1066. Others have Roger
being born at Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire; in Tamworth Castle in
Warwickshire; and in Normandy with dates of birth ranging from 1060 to
1065. Note the Roger born Scrivelsby!
8) Did indeed Roger de Marmion also become known as “Roger of
Coningsby”? It would explain many shortcomings, particularly the
Marmions holding of the Coningsby estate at the time that Roger and
John de Coningsby appear also to have been Barons of Coningsby! The
one thing which stands in the way however is the known descendants of
the Marmions. None of whom seem to fit our Roger, but there are many
similarities. However early records usually only show one child, the
heir to the estate in the records, an unusual situation when most
families had several children at least. So perhaps there are more
unrecorded children?
9) In favour of this argument is that we do not know of any siblings
of either John de Coningsby or his father Roger de Coningsby, if they
were truly ‘of’ Coningsby they most certainly did not exist in
Coninsgby by the name of ‘Coningsby’ in 1086 (Doomsday Book). It is
quite conceivable that Roger de Marmion born in Normandy, coming over
with William the Conqueror, settling in Tamworth and being awarded
lands throughout Lincolnshire fathered another Roger , brother to
Robert de Marmion, who then took on the title “of Coningsby” . Ancient
pedigrees tended to deal only with the first son, others being
unrecorded.
10) In the papers I acquired, Jackson mentions Dugdales Manuscripts
(39), in particular a manuscript which has a reference in Latin “Rob;
Marmion - de Whiteacre concept : Johi Coningesby terr in Midleton Com
warw. P eastam sans date”. I have roughly translated that as Robert
Marmion of Whiteacre allowed John Coningsby to fence in land in
Midleton, County Warwick. in the Parish of Eastham. The reference is
without date! So it could be that Robert Marmion gave lands to his
cousin John of Coningsby.
NOTE! Midleton is a small village two miles south of Tamworth, in the
county of Warwickshire. At the time of the Domesday Book, Midleton
was under a Norman Overlord Hugh de Grantmaisnil who had several
holdings in Warwickshire. When he died it passed to the Lords Marmion
of Tamworth Castle. By 1185 Geoffrey Marmion had already made a grant
to the Templars from his land there(40) In 1220 Philippa widow of
Robert Marmion was claiming dower in Middleton from her son Robert
senior'.(41) He had already committed the lands to the Bishop of
Winchester, who promised to satisfy her. This Robert Marmion died in
1241 or 1242 and was succeeded by his son Philip,
So it looks as if we are talking about the period between 1185 and
1241 when Robert was alive. So my guess is that we are talking about
the first John, Baron of Coningsby who lost his lands by confiscation
and who must have gone back to his kinsman to seek land for himself
and his family.
11) In my researches on the Boteler family (Butler to the Conqueror);
of whom an Elizabeth Boteler of Watton Woodhall, County Hertfordshire,
married a Henry Coningsby of North Mimms about 1563; I found a
reference to a Ralph de Boteler marrying a Matilda de Marmion in the
last few years of the 1200’s. It is a little too far removed to draw
any conclusions but I thought the link proved interesting. Dugdales
Antiquities of Warwickshire also states that Ralph Boteler (the elder)
also had shares in the Manor of Midleton
12) William Dugdale in his Antiquities of Warwickshire says on page
759, when describing Morton Bagot, that William Bagot sold the Manor
of Morton Bagot to Roger of Coningsby for 130 Marks in 1296. He goes
on to say “ and (Roger Coningsby) having a special relation to Sir
Philip Marmion of Tamworth Castle in the County, was the Executor
of his Testament; whereby he had a grant from the monks of Berevale
(to whom the said Sir Philip had been a benefactor) that himself and
his heirs might present a fit clerk for the increase of their covent,
to be shorn as a monk……….”
What was the special relationship? and why did an apparent
“stranger” in family terms benefit so generously from the will of
Sir Philip Marmion? Again we have an indication that there was
something in the way of a family relationship between the Coningsbys
and the Marmions
13) The English genealogy web site GENUKI has under the Lincolnshire
pages for Coningsby, the following information-
Manors:
Coningsby Castle no longer remains. A painting of it existed at
Hampton Court, Herefordshire in 1882. The manor was the former seat of
the Marmyon family, then later the seat of the Coningsby family.
WJho...@aol.com
rjc....@gmail.com writes:
> 3) The lordships of Tamworth (Warwickshire), Winteringham and
> Coningsby were held by Robert de Marmion in 1217 and before that held
> by Robert de Marmion in 1115 – 1118, together with Scrivelsby,
> Winteringham and Willingham all in Lincolnshire. They continued to
> hold the estates through to 1180, they therefore owned the estates of
> Coningsby continuously from 1115 to at least l224 (37); how then could
> our Roger Coningsby and his son John also hold them at the same time?
>
You have some odd error here.
Firstly what is your source which states pointedly that Tamworth was "held"
by Robert de Marmion *in* 1217 ?
The Robert de Marmion who was active in 1115 is not the prior holder.
Roger de Marmion of Tamworth and other places died in 1129 or thereabouts.
Robert, his son, was his heir and was living and an adult in 8 Stephen. He was
slain at the Battle of Conventry.
I think your problem here, is that you're not citing your sources. If you
did, we could point out to you where the errors are exactly.
W
WJho...@aol.com
rjc....@gmail.com writes:
> Note! The Marmions were a powerful Norman Family hailing from Fontenay
> – au – Marmion near Falais (Normandy). During the time of William the
> Conqueror, who also lived in Normandy, William and the Marmions had a
> common ancestor, Rollo the Granger. The Marmions acted as Champions to
> the Dukes of Normandy and when William arrived in England, he did so
> with his Champion, Sir Robert Marmion the Lord of Fontenay.
I don't think any of this is based on reality.
Roger was Lord of Fontney in Normandy. He was supposedly living in 1066.
Other than that, the rest of this looks like random meanderings about based
on no sources.
W
WJho...@aol.com
rjc....@gmail.com writes:
> 4) The first Robert Marmyon, Lord of Fontney, in Normandy has also
> been referred to as Roger, although this is later refuted as a
> clerical error (there being no evidence to back up a Roger!) It is
> thought that he was born about 1040 and was for his services to the
> Conqueror granted substantial lands in Lincolnshire including
> Scrivelsby (near Horncastle). Both fore names are French and sometimes
> transposed and used as one name.
>
>
Referred to by whom? Refuted by whom?
There is evidence to back up a Roger. But there is zero evidence to
"think" that he was born "About 1040" or any other decade.
We simply have no evidence of his age Roger or Robert, whatsoever. He
could have died at age 100 as easily as at age 60
There is no evidence that he was granted land for any service at all.
WJho...@aol.com
rjc....@gmail.com writes:
> 5) Roger Marmion, born about 1133, married Maud de Beauchamp about
> 1153 daughter of Sir William de Beauchamp, and Maud de Brause and
> eventually died about 1181. Roger Coningsby who was alive 1296 - 1316
> and probably slightly earlier, put himself under the protection of Guy
> de Beauchamp, 2nd Earle of Warwick,(5) (Earl of Warwick, Knight, born
> 1278, Warwickshire, England, died 10 Aug 1315.) “his kinsman, and was
> steward of his house”. Guy de Beauchamp is described as being a
> “Kinsman”, although I have been unable to trace the “kinship”, but
> there is clearly some relationship as yet undiscovered. Did Robert
> Marmion (born 1133) have a brother Roger who was Roger of Coningsby?
>
We have no evidence that I know of, that places the birth of the next one
in 1133 as opposed to any other year in that decade.
No evidence for the year of their marriage within give or take a decade.
No evidence for the name of her mother, who probably was NOT a Braose at
all, and probably was not named Maud even if she was.
No evidence for the year of his death although it was "BEF (not in, and not
abt) 1181"
For some reason you then skip about five generations, but what source are
you quoting for this supposed Roger Coningsby ?
WJho...@aol.com
rjc....@gmail.com writes:
> 6) Robert Marmion, the Younger, born about 1190, of Lincolnshire,
> England, died about 1241/42 known as Robert the younger, to
> distinguish him from his elder half-brother of the same name. On 15
> May 1218, he made a fine with the King to pay an amount for having the
> custody of the castle of Tamworth and the lands of which Robert his
> father had died seised, to hold until Robert, the elder, his brother,
> should make his peace with the King and recover his father's lands in
> England, in which event he was to retain the vills of Winteringham and
> Coningsby in. Lincolnshire. On 26 Nov 1224, his right to 5 hides of
> land in Quinton and to the manor of Berwick was acknowledged by his
> half-brother, Robert the elder, to whom he granted 2 carucates (240
> acres) of land in Coningsby. They clearly owned Coningsby during the
> period 1115 through to 1224 and beyond.
>
There is no evidence that Robert was born "About 1190" as opposed to any
other year within a 25 year span.
Cite your source for this fine, so we can review it. And your source for
this arrangement with a supposed elder brother.
WJho...@aol.com
rjc....@gmail.com writes:
> 7) There are conflicting suggestions about the Marmions in
> Winteringham. Some suggest that Robert Marmion’s son Roger was born
> at Winteringham “about 1065”. Clearly it would be after the Battle of
> Hastings, and if Roger was born at Winteringham it would be more
> likely to be 1067 or later, as William took some while to reach London
> and was only crowned there on Christmas Day 1066. Others have Roger
> being born at Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire; in Tamworth Castle in
> Warwickshire; and in Normandy with dates of birth ranging from 1060 to
> 1065. Note the Roger born Scrivelsby!
>
People who are raving lunatics make such suggestions. So they can be
dismissed.
John Watson
>
> read more »
Robin,
Baron Roger de Coningsby and his son John in the reign of John are
fictional characters.
On some of the other points in your post - Roger Marmion is not shown
as holding any lands in Lincolnshire in the Domesday survey. The lands
which were later held by the Marmions, were in 1086 held by Robert le
Despencer. Robert le Despencer died about 1097 when his lands were
apparently inherited by his brother Urse d'Abetot. It is possible, but
by no means proven, that Roger Marmion who died about 1130 married a
daughter of Urse. Another daughter of Urse d'Abetot (called Emeline by
Dugdale) married Walter de Beauchamp.
I think that you have to start again and disregard all these "ïnternet
pedigrees" - particularly regarding dates and places of birth which
are completely unknown and simply a guess - usually wrong.
Regards,
John