Verdun (& the Boteler connection)
Cristopher Nash
--
I've today got and had a quick look at an early copy of Mark S.
Hagger, _The Fortunes of a Norman Family: The Verduns in England,
Ireland and Wales 1066-1316_ (2001), which I haven't seen noted here.
I'm not going to take the time to spell out points/questions raised
in this forum to which some responses appear in the Hagger (I
hesitate to call them fixed 'answers'), but there are a number, it
seems to me. The book being 250+pp, and for legal reasons as well as
reasons of sheer time, I'm simply quoting -- largely without comment
-- brief passages here that look to me of most immediate relevance to
issues raised on this list. Those interested will recognize why I've
chosen these particular items. The work's biblio of archival
(manuscript) sources is substantial, and while it sorts out the
relations among some 75 Verduns -- and a few of their spouses -- over
this 250-year period, as a historical study it has the advantage of
vesting no interest in proving tenuous family connections but only in
considering the implications of ones that it finds satisfactorily
documented. (Family historians may find some scenes disturbing --
i.e. where he doesn't dare as we might to speculate about
'further-out' connections.)
At the bottom of this posting is a recap of a portion of Hagger's
Verdun genealogy. Later generations are given, as are other
siblings; I've concentrated only on our period and on individs. whose
relationships with other families seem most immediately relevant to
the Gen-Med discussion.
In place of his footnote superscripts, where the source-title is
brief I've inserted the actual source citation in mid-text. CRR =
Curia Regis Rolls (London, 1891-). RLC = Rotulia Clausarum in Turri
Londinensi Asservati, ed. T.D. Hardy, London 1833, 1844. CPR =
Calendar of Patent Rolls (London, 1922-). CDI = Calendar of
Documents Relating to Ireland, eds. H.S. Sweetman and G.F. Handcock
(London, 1875-86). CIPM = Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem
(London, 1904-).
Hagger confirms unproblematically, though with modest (and for us
perhaps significant) caution so far as any claims might be made as to
its wider genealogical significance:
Nicholas de Verdun's bride, Clementia, appears to be a member of the
Butler [sic] family - although not necessarily a representative of
the senior line - and the same is true of his daughter's husband,
Roesia marrying Theobald II Butler in 1225 at the express wish of the
king [CRR, vol. 17, no. 1462; Hagger p. 218].
Outlining the force of Nicholas de Verdun's determination (which is
also potentially of import for us) to ingratiate himself with Henry
III --
It is easy to suspect that it was more than simply coincidence that
led Nicholas to attach himself to the court just as Henry III [at the
end of his minority] was taking control of the kingdom and beginning
to make his own grants. Whatever his motives, Nicholas does seem to
have done rather well out of Henry III in the first three years of
his independent reign....In 1228, another sign of royal favour
manifested itself when the king's 'dear and faithful Nicholas de
Verdun' and his wife, Clementia, were granted custody of 'Susan, our
niece, the daughter of Llywelyn prince of North Wales and Joanna his
wife, our sister...[ellipsis Hagger's] to be brought up safe and
secure and without all injury'. [CPR, 1225-32, p. 230] [Hagger pp.
68-9]
Compare e.g. Hagger's 'dear and faithful' with Nat's translation
('beloved') of "dilecto et fideli" reported by Paul 29 Nov, and
Hagger's general emphasis on the _Verdun's_ (rather than Llewellyn's)
possibly gainful motive in the exchange. (I understand Nat's
decision - the locution is formulaic; in this case though, I feel the
more strict translation may be worth our considering here.)
The book makes no mention of Dauntsey, and no allusion to any
possible further connection between Clemence and the royal family.
Re Chris Phillips' query --
One point that I don't think has been discussed - a different one from the
question of whether hostages were normally placed with relatives - was the
point about why Clemence de Verdun was mentioned along with Nicholas, in the
order for Susanna to be placed as a hostage. Actually, I think Paul has
touched on some of the practicalities of this, but I wonder if anyone can
comment on how common it was for a wife to be named in this way?
-- this is of course a good point. But if behind it there's any
expectation that Clemence's mention might disclose some special claim
to attention by right of her own status (the "regina Clemencie"
issue), then my gut feeling, having studied this section of Hagger's
history of the Verduns, is that it would put Clemence de Verdun out
of the running. In spite of some speculations anong us there is no
sign of the Boteler's having anything resembling a position in the
social order warranting special attention beyond that of an upcoming
minor family at this time. There is, however, the possibility that
_Nicholas'_ ambition, rather than Clemence's social status, led to
their having Susanna entrusted to them. This does leave the key
possibility that Clemence had had an affair with a royal, but I'm not
yet clear there is any evidence that events would have placed her
particularly near the king -- unless of course Nicholas (shame to
say) may have wished it, which isn't without historical precedent. A
good deal more on the Boteler history could certainly help here.
With regard to the question as to why the name Verdun was doggedly
maintained (as against e.g. Botiler, Albo Monasterio/Blancminster,
etc), Hagger lays out substantial socio-political reasons for this,
at length and in several places (e.g. p. 225-8).
As I say, I've not had time to read the book thoroughly, by any
means. As to the search for the right Botiler/Butler line, however
-- and for reasons I won't go into here -- a rapid scan of Hagger's
account of the power-network with which the Verduns are associated
(and particularly the Verduns' alignment within it) suggests to me
that a consideration of the butlers of the Earls of Chester (whom
Paul has included in his quick-pincerna-scan for us, beginning 23 Nov
2001) should get very high priority -- so long as we are to look for
Botelers of English origin. If we had evidence of a pincerna
associated with the Ferrers, earls of Derby, this would be a second
choice. On the English side there remains a possibility that the
butlers of the Beaumont earls of Leicester provide the link; one
motive underlying the promotion of the Verduns under Bertram
II/Norman/Bertram III appears to be their role as buffer between the
Chester and Leicester camps (in the same period as the 'raising from
the dust' of the Clintons, for much the same reason) -- as they were
between the earls Chester and Derby. But a distinct
counter-Leicester Chester allegiance/entanglement is unmistakable.
I'll give a summary of some of the thinking if it's wanted, but the
devil's in the details and I won't take time here to synthesize these.
I should point out that following K. John's granting to Bertram III
of lands in Ireland (in the present county of Louth, based around
Dundalk and Ardee), the orientation of Verdun marriages shifts from
the English Midlands to Ireland, and Hagger associates the Clemence
le Boteler marriage (along with marriages to de Lacys in the period)
with that move; in the Boteler/Butler search it would seem wrong to
neglect Irish records. (It's following the death of Walter de Lacy
-- and John de Verdun's inheritance of Lacy lands in the Welsh march
-- that in a later generation the Verduns shift their attention to
marriages in Wales [overview, pp. 218-19].) Here chronology is
important though, since it's at the moment of K. John's granting of
Irish lands to the Verduns that he does the same with Theobald Walter
(Boteler) (viz. "five and half cantreds in Limerick, including the
borough of Killaloe and land now in counties Clare, Offaly, Tipperary
and Limerick", p. 50-1). A further complication that should in the
end be a valuable one to follow is that lands having come to the
Verduns from 'Philip Butler' via the 'Clementia Butler' (as Hagger
calls them) marriage are in _Wilts_ -- viz. Stoke Farthing, Wilsford,
and (a so-far unidentified site) Stapellaunton. [Hagger p. 76]
Along these lines:
How much influence the de Verduns had in the choice of their
marriages is not clear. We do not know if they initiated marriage
negotiations with de Clinton, Basset, Butler, de Bohen et al. or
whether they were approached by these families, although it does seem
unlikely that the de Verduns would have suggested a marriage to Earl
Robert de Ferrers in Stephen's reign. Instead, de Ferrers probably
married his daughter, Matilda, to Bertram III de Verdun in an effort
to counter the influence which Earl Ranulf of Chester was exerting
over the family....In one case at least [where Henry III urged the m.
between Roesia and Theobald II Butler] it seems that the de Verduns
had been given very little room for manoeuvre....[Hagger p. 219]
On Rohese/Rohais/Roesia's marriages:
...[I]t is clear that she had been married and widowed at least twice
already by [the time she succeeded, 1231], as the charter she gave
the priory of Grace Dieu [which she founded] in 1231x41 mentions her
husbands (in the plural), amongst others....The identity of her first
husband is unknown, but he must have died before 4 September 1225
when Henry III sent a letter to Roesia urging her to marry Theobald
II Butler [RLC, vol. 2, p. 60] (also called Theobald Walter in
contemporary sources), the heir to the lordship of Nenagh in County
Tipperary, who had himself previously been married to Geoffrey de
Marisco's daughter.
Hagger's footnote here centers on a citation:
'[Theobald Walter] has so misconducted himself in regard to the
king, that although he has married the justiciary's (Geoffrey de
Marisco's) daughter, and has by her a son, the justificary would,
if it is the king's will, deprive him of all the land which he
holds of the king in Ireland'. [CDI, vol. 1, no. 1443] This notice
dates to about August 1226, so that Geoffrey's comments must relate
to a past marriage.
Roesia may have been reluctant to marry him as Henry sent another
letter to her father, asking him to encourage her to make the match.
[RLC, vol. 2, p. 60]....Roesia did indeed marry Thoebald Butler and
had at least two children by him, a son, John, and a daughter,
Matilda. John was to inherit the de Verduns' lands from his mother,
having already adopted her toponym at least five years before her
death....Matilda, who might have been married to Walter II de Lacy
before his death between 1238 and 1241,
Hagger's footnote here:
The Register of St Thomas' abbey records that an unnamed daughter of
Roesia's had married Walter II de Lacy at an unspecified date. As
Roesia is not known to have had any other daughters Matilda is the
likeliest candidate (Register, p. 420).
had married John fitzAlan by 1242.
[Excerpta é Rotuli Finium in Turri Londinensi Asservati Henrico
Tertio Rege, 1216-72, ed. C. Roberts, Record Commission (London,
1835), I, p. 387. ]
Matilda was to outlive her husband and went on to marry Richard
d'Amundeville before her own death in 1284. [CIPM, vol. 2, no. 489]
[NOTE: Hagger elsewhere (p. 251) says she d. 1283, and here cites
both CIPM, vol. 2, no. 489 and no. 536. We have her as d. 27 Nov
1283, though I haven't checked the relevant posting.]
Theobald Butler, d. Poitou 1230, had ordered that Roesia be assigned
dower from his lands, with
the custody of 'the lands and heirs of Theobald Walter, and the
marriage of the heirs' being given to Richard of Cornwall, Henry
III's brother. [CCR, 1227-31, p. 572; CDI, vol. 1, nos. 1845, 1847]
Hagger, finding these orders sent also to the justiciary of Ireland,
believes she may also have something in dower there, but finds no
record of what it might have been. She also petitions against Roger
de Quency of a third part of the manors of Whiteheton and Merton with
appurts. in Lancs; a third of the manor of Shipley, Yorks; a third of
the manor of Belaugh, Norf; a third of a £4 rent from the manor of
Perham, Suff, as her dower. [CRR, vol. 15, no. 372] [End of Hagger
p. 72-3, from <On Rohese/Rohais/Roesia's marriages> above.]
[NOTE: Whiteheton is unidentified, but I'm aware that '- heton' is a
common suffix in Lancs as elsewhere - viz. 'TUN on high land'.]
To save possible confusion owing to Hagger's nomenclature, re the
'Walter II de Lacy' who is said to have m. an unnamed da. of Roesia
de Verdun -- this would actually be the s. of Gilbert de Lacy (grdsn
of Walter -- more commonly called Walter II -- de Lacy the bro of
Hugh II, E of Ulster) and Isabel le Bigod; living (acc. to e.g. DNB
sub Walter de Lacy) 1238 but d.s.p. in his grandfa's lifetime. Bro.
and sis. John and Matilda de Verdun would thus have m. bro. and sis.
Walter and Margery/Margaret de Lacy.
In this quick scan, I've not found in Hagger the fa. of Alianor
(Eleanor) de Bohun, John's 2d wife after Margery de Lacy, though he
implies, in alluding to her son Humphrey's name, that she's a da. of
one of the Humphreys. If indeed she is as I (very hurriedly) suspect
the da. of Humphrey de Bohun and (1) Eleanor de Briouze, then
Roesia's petitions against Roger de Quency take on some special
interest, since Humphrey's wife (2) is Joan, da. of Robert de Quincy
by Helen, da. of Llewellyn ap Iorwerth....but I haven't in any way
yet worked this through (though I'm not as worried about chronology
as you might at first think)!
I don't offer the Hagger as having brought a great deal of new
evidence to bear; much of it has already been recorded here. It's
simply another thoughtful perspective -- comprised in part of a few
committed decisions where uncertainty has persisted here -- by
someone having dedicated concerted study to all the known acta of the
Verduns 1066-1316. There are topics raised among posters to which
Hagger does not give consideration (and no doubt in at least one or
two cases should have) -- one of the most obvious being the Albo
Monasterio matter. No Broc is named other than Laurence de Brok --
fl. 1230-70, not the Lawrence touched on by Rosie -- and this purely
by way of illustration of a point about the uses of influence at
court during the period; no family relationship offered.
Brief sum. of Hagger's reconstruction (again, partial):
1 Bertram I de Verdun
fl. ca. 1086-1100; of Verdun nr. Vessey, Manche, cant. Pontorson;
prob. witness of charter, Avranches, 1066
1.1 Bertram II de Verdun
d. by 1129-30
1.1.1 Norman de Verdun
succeeded 1129-30. Married Lescelina de Clinton, da. of Geoffrey I de Clinton
1.1.1.1 Bertram III de Verdun
b. ca. 1137-8; d. 24 August 1192, Jaffa. Succeeded 1152/3. Married
(1) Matilda, da. Earl Robert de Ferrers; (2) Rohesia/Rohais (--) by
1176
1.1.1.1.1 Thomas de Verdun
b. ca. 1173 (majority, and succeeded, 1194); d. 1198. Married
Eustachia Basset [NOTE: This would be da. of Gilbert Basset of
Wycombe/Bicester and Egeline de Courtenay; she m. (2) Richard de
Camville].
1.1.1.1.2 Nicholas de Verdun (bro)
succeeded 1199; d. 1231, by 23 Oct. Married Clementia Butler, da. of
Phillip Butler.
1.1.1.1.2.1 Roesia de Verdun
succeeded 1231; d. 1246-7. Married Theobald II 'Butler' (s. of
Theobald Walter) who d. 1230, Poitou.
1.1.1.1.2.1.1/2 John de Verdun
b. 1225-30, d. by May 1274 m. (1) Margery/Margaret de Lacy, da. of
Gilbert de Lacy of Ewyas Lacy, Heref (d. 1230) and Isabel le Bigod;
(2) Alianor de Bohun.
1.1.1.1.2.1.1/2 Maud/Matilda de Verdun
d. 1283-4. Marriages: May have m. (1) Walter de Lacy who d. betw.
1238 and 1242; m. (1 or 2) John FitzAlan by 1242; m. (2 or 3)
Richard d'Amundeville
(No indication of the chronol. order of the preceding two siblings.)
1.1.1.1.3 Lesceline de Verdun
da. of (1.1.1.1) Bertram III de Verdun. Married Hugh de Lacy, Earl
of Ulster, who d. 1242-3, s. of Hugh de Lacy, 1st Ld of Meath (d.
1186) and Roysya/ Rose/ Rohese de Monemue/Monmouth
I'll read the book through more thoroughly when I've a chance, and
meanwhile hope friends here find this as interesting as I have.
Cheers to all,
Cris
Cristopher Nash
--
A few minutes ago I wrote --
A further complication that should in the end be a valuable one to
follow is that lands having come to the Verduns from 'Philip Butler'
via the 'Clementia Butler' (as Hagger calls them) marriage are in
_Wilts_ -- viz. Stoke Farthing, Wilsford, and (a so-far unidentified
site) Stapellaunton. [Hagger p. 76]
-- and realize, particularly in having picked up further postings
<Re: Clemence de Dauntsey, mother of Joan of Wales> showing continued
doubt on this subject, that I must include the references for this
proposition.
The full quotation (following Hagger's consideration of Roesia's
direction that a taper be maintained out of the issues of the manor
of Wilsford) is :
...the inquisition post mortem of 1274 makes it clear that this was
the service by which the manor was held rather than an act of
devotion. [CLR, 1245-51, p111] Although Wilsford and Stoke Farthing
in Wiltshire first appear in de Verdun hands during Roesia's tenure
of the family estates, they came to the family as a result of
Nicholas de Verdun's marriage to Clementia Butler. This is revealed
in a plea of 1243 in which Roesia claimed to hold Stoke Farthing as
the heir of Philip Butler, the father of the said Clementia. [CRR,
vol. 17, no 1462] It is also clear that Stapellaunton (Wiltshire),
which Roesia gave to her daughter in maritagium, came to the family
in the same way and was, like Wilsford, held for the service of
finding one wax taper for the cathedral at Salisbury. [CIPM, vol. 2,
no. 6]
Reviewing the extent of quotations I've sent, I continue anxious
about infringement of Mark Hagger's important rights here (hence my
abbreviation of the citation in my first posting), and feel I must
stop at this point, at least pending further discussion. Hope
friends'll understand.
Best,
Cris
Chris Phillips
> I've today got and had a quick look at an early copy of Mark S.
> Hagger, _The Fortunes of a Norman Family: The Verduns in England,
> Ireland and Wales 1066-1316_ (2001), which I haven't seen noted here.
Many thanks for all that interesting information - there's a lot more food for thought, and further discussion, there!
I don't think I have digested it all properly yet, but I thought the following points were interesting.
(1) Hagger seems to be in no doubt that Rohese, the daughter of Nicholas and Clemence, had a marriage previous to that to Theobald Butler, her first husband having died before September 1225.
(2) The information about a daughter having married Walter de Lacy is new to me. Apparently Hagger identifies this daughter tentatively as Maud, but doesn't the chronology start to look a bit tight, if Walter died between 1238 and 1242 and this Maud is Rohese's daughter by Theobald, whom she married late 1225 or later? I wondered if Hagger was clear that Maud was Rohese's daughter by Theobald, rather than possibly being her daughter by the supposed previous marriage, as we've discussed previously.
(3) I don't remember having seen the information about the manor of Wilsford being of Clemence's inheritance before. I couldn't see any clues about Philip le Butler in connection with the two other manors we knew about - Steepel Lavington and Stoke Farthing. Perhaps Wilsford would be an alternative lead.
(Incidentally, did I miss previously the information that Rohese was not only Philip le Butler's granddaughter but his heir? Unless he had holdings other than these three Wiltshire manors we know of, it looks as though he was a fairly small man. Is this in itself some indirect indication that Nicholas may have married his daughter before he succeeded to the Verdun estates in 1199?)
(4) I thought the strongest point of the chronological argument against Clemence being a candidate as the mother of Joan was the indication that this could have made Nicholas quite a bit younger than his wife. It would be interesting to know if Hagger's work gives any more accurate indication when Nicholas was born. Previously we had his elder brother's birth c.1174, and then some information from Burke that seems to push Nicholas' birth into the mid-1180s. But I think some doubt was then expressed about that.
Chris Phillips
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/01 2:36:10 AM, cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk writes:
<< I thought the strongest point of the chronological argument against
Clemence being a candidate as the mother of Joan was the indication that this
could have made Nicholas quite a bit younger than his wife. >>
I am not sure where this came from. I have Nicholas de Verdun born about 1174
and died in April 1232 at age 58. Also, it seems he was first married to Joan
de Lacy (b ca 1178) , daughter of Walter de Lacy. The date if her death is
unknown. Norr's "Some Early English Pedigrees", pg 127 shows this marriage.
I do not know his source as I do not have the book.
Nicholas de Verdun's father was Bertran de Verdun, Sheriff of Leicestershire
and his mother' name was Roesia (which shows us from who the granddaughter
was named.
Roesia's mother was Lasceline de Clinton, daughter of Geoffrey de Clinton,
Lord Chamberlain and treasurer.
Rohesia de Verdun, Nicholas' daughter, first married William Verdun (Lord
Verdun) according to Norr.
- Ken
KHF...@aol.com
Curious. Let us for a moment assume that Clementia de Verdun was Joan's
mother.
I think we can believe that Joan was at first kept from knowing who her
mother was. That seems evident from the papal decree that showed her simply
as being the daughter of an unmarried woman and King John when he was
unmarried. To keep this relationship a secret, a good marriage for Clementia
would have to be sought with a trustworthy English nobleman and property
holder (Nicholas de Verdun?). Clementia would need property of her own as
well to ensure her cooperation. This property could have gone first to her
father, Philip Butler.
Suddenly, we have a minor player Philip Butler, with seemingly little
property, who comes into considerable property that is passed on through his
daughter, Clementia.
Further, this same Clementia and her husband Nicholas was chosen to receive
custody of Joan and Llywelyn's daughter, Susan. The purpose for the placement
seems to be for the child to be brought up in a safe and secure environment
with the opportunity for a better education. Of course, would this Clementia
be the mother or Joan, she would be the grandmother of Susan, though there is
no reason to believe that Joan knew that there was a family relationship if
the truth were being kept from her. The custodial grant was by Henry III,
stepbrother to Joan and step-uncle to Susan, yet the decree called Susan
Henry's niece and Joan Henry's sister. Does this speak of a personal
closeness that has not been previously recognized? Could Henry III have been
privy to the identity of Joan's mother and granted custody on that basis? If
his father (King John) or his grandfather (Henry II) had provided for
Clementia through marriage arrangements and land grants, then he may have
known the facts behind these arrangements.
[1228, another sign of royal favour manifested itself when the king's 'dear
and faithful Nicholas de Verdun' and his wife, Clementia, were granted
custody of 'Susan, our niece, the daughter of Llywelyn prince of North Wales
and Joanna his wife, our sister...[ellipsis Hagger's] to be brought up safe
and secure and without all injury'. [CPR, 1225-32, p. 230] [Hagger pp. 68-9]
In a message dated 12/9/01 2:24:11 PM, c...@windsong.u-net.com writes:
Hagger writes: << ... the inquisition post mortem of 1274 makes it clear that
Nathaniel Taylor
>Curious. Let us for a moment assume that Clementia de Verdun was Joan's
>mother.
>
>I think we can believe that Joan was at first kept from knowing who her
>mother was...
This sounds a bit reminiscent of some of the postulated components of
Ken's Sutton-Bagley theory. I think it's best, in the pursuit of
plausible genealogical reconstructions, to build hypotheses without
reliance on conspiracies and secrets.
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
Showmanship!
Get those rubes into the tent ---- that's what he's after.
"Dark Genealogical Mysteries" ---- the more the better ---- with heroes
and villains.
Real ones if they can be found ---- or he'll just make one or two up to
"enhance the story" ---- Fun and Games.
"Docudrama" ---- sometimes History needs a little assist, in order to
"make it relevant to our lives today."
Many flakey academics have been preaching the same thing for decades.
Ken is just applying those ideas in New Domains.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-1012...@mid-tgn-ngz-vty61.as.wcom.net...
Kay Allen AG
Kay Allen AG
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/01 12:07:28 PM, all...@pacbell.net writes:
<< Unfortunately, I find Vernon Norr's work somewhat lacking in reliability.
>>
That is not the point. what are the sources is the point.
- Ken
Vickie Elam White
>I think we can believe that Joan was at first kept from knowing who her
>mother was. That seems evident from the papal decree that showed her
>simply as being the daughter of an unmarried woman and King John when
>he was unmarried.
There you go with another conspiracy theory! Are you a frustrated
mystery writer?
Vickie Elam White
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for taking the time to post the information from Mr. Hagger's
book on the Verdun family. Your post was most interesting.
As for the origin of Philip le Boteler, I suppose it's possible that
his family served as butlers to the Earls of Salisbury. If he had 3
manors as stated, he would have been at or near knightly rank. A
survey of published Lacock and Bradenstoke cartularies might well turn
up a reference to him or his family. Also, a review of the tenants of
knights' fees under the Earls of Salisbury and the Dunstanville family
might turn up something useful. Another helpful book to check might
be the published charters of the Earls of Gloucester.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote in message news:<a05100300b8385f38ff3f@[10.0.1.2]>...
Todd A. Farmerie
Yes, it is - so what are the sources Norr uses for this?
taf
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/01 1:39:26 PM, 10265...@compuserve.com writes:
<< There you go with another conspiracy theory! Are you a frustrated
mystery writer? >>
No -- just looking under stones that the rest of you won't turn up because
you think they are genealogical cowpies.
D. Spencer Hines
We have real trouble here if folks can't tell stones from cow pies.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<KHF...@aol.com> wrote in message news:168.5682f3...@aol.com...
Roz Griston
-----Original Message-----
From: KHF...@aol.com [SMTP:KHF...@aol.com]
In a message dated 12/10/01 1:39:26 PM, 10265...@compuserve.com
writes:
<< There you go with another conspiracy theory! Are you a frustrated
mystery writer? >>
No -- just looking under stones that the rest of you won't turn up
because
you think they are genealogical cowpies.
-----------------------
right on ken!
experience has taught me when walking in fields; there can be stones
under cowpies. and sigh..sometimes there are just more cowpies. but, at
least you know the answer.
keep on digging
roz - waiting for baka buta inu to comment. he IS our resident expert
on cowpie components.
Cristopher Nash
--
Following my fairly massive double posting in starting this thread yesterday --
I want first to make sure that my mode of signalling quotations -- a
series of vertical left-margin lines (rather than '>') -- has
transmitted properly to the list, since these have disappeared in the
copy returned to me from Gen-Med. (I use the same format below, in
responding to Chris Phillips' reply.) If not, I hope someone will
alert me and I'll resend using '>' or indented blocks.
And seeing that the postings were inclined to be taken as part of the
search for the mother of Joan, mother of Gwladys Ddu, with a
particular bias toward the hope of the discovery of royal parentage,
I need to put up-front where I'm coming from, so that any comments I
make as we go along will be best understood.
In my view it needs to be recalled that it is a _norm_ in the period
we're considering for the children of the landed to be reared in
other households, as a regular part of their education. (That this
was in fact universal practice throughout the period from the 16th to
the early 20th century in England among _all_ classes, down to the
very poorest -- often for economic reasons -- has been well
documented, and is all too often ignored by family historians.)
Nicholas de Verdun himself (husband of Clemence) "was brought up at
the court of Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, and his wife Countess
Idona" [Hagger, p. 59]. For me, Occam's razor really needs to
brought to bear in this discussion. What appears to many to be a
special case -- i.e. the king sponsors Susanna's upbringing by
Nicholas and Clemence (Boteler) de Verdun -- is not evidence that the
king had any particular interest in this child (as hostage or for any
other reason) rather than that, quite simply and taking the most
economical account into consideration first, he supported the
interests of Llywellyn and of Nicholas de Verdun. (This is not an
argument to the effect that John acted out of profound love for these
two, but rather that it's consonant with his longstanding habit of
keeping his cohorts on side.) And of course it constitutes no
evidence whatsoever that any other child, whether his own or anyone
else's and whether by some Clemence or not, has anything whatsoever
to do with any Verdun.
Having said that, in my hardy effort to go along with the group in
speculating about Clemence (Boteler) de Verdun as a possible king's
mistress -- and if we're to put aside my winking suggestion that
Nicholas' behaviour suggests that he himself may have wished just
such an affair to take place -- I do feel, as I said, that a better
knowledge of the Boteler background might allow us to consider more
intelligently what this particular Clemence might have been up to
before she married Nicholas.
But on this point I don't want to have misled anyone. In my two long
paragraphs on what might be the origins of Philip Boteler, the father
of Clemence, I don't mean to be taken as believing that the first
place to search is not of course in the family of Theobald (Walter)
Boteler/Butler (rather than, say, in the household of Chester, Derby
or Leicester), with whom the Verduns are elsewhere known to be
allied. After all, as Round has it in his substantial DNB article on
him, from 1188 on "He now was in constant attendance on John" and --
on the principle I raised above -- Clemence might well (if a young
relation of his, and if the chronology were right) have herself been
in 'constant attendance on John'. I simply left it to be recalled
that -- as I said in my first message about this some time ago, as
soon as the Boteler/Butler name arose -- there is a tricky problem
here. As Round puts it, it is after 15 May 1192 that "He now adopted
a fresh seal, adding to his name (Theobald Walter) the style
'Pincerna Hiberniae'....hence he is occasionally, in his latter days,
spoken of as 'Le Botiller' or 'Butler,' which latter became the
surname of his descendants." If, then, a Philip, father of Clemence,
were of this family and were called 'Boteler/Butler', he would
presumably be of so close an age -- and presumably so close a
relationship -- to Theobald as to have left consanguinuity a real
issue when it came to Theobald II Boteler's marriage to Clemence's
daughter Roesia. If Philip is a relation of Theobald I and through
Theobald I becomes a Butler only in/after 1192, how far removed from
Theobald II can Clemence -- marrying Nicholas say ca. 1200 -- be?
Now, Chris --
>Cris Nash wrote:
>> I've today got and had a quick look at an early copy of Mark S.
>> Hagger, _The Fortunes of a Norman Family: The Verduns in England,
>> Ireland and Wales 1066-1316_ (2001), which I haven't seen noted here.
>
>Many thanks for all that interesting information - there's a lot
>more food for thought, and further discussion, there!
>
>I don't think I have digested it all properly yet, but I thought the
>following points were interesting.
>
>(1) Hagger seems to be in no doubt that Rohese, the daughter of
>Nicholas and Clemence, had a marriage previous to that to Theobald
>Butler, her first husband having died before September 1225.
Yes -- but remember that this is based, so far as I can see in
Hagger, purely on the use of the plural that has already been pointed
out in this group.
>(2) The information about a daughter having married Walter de Lacy
>is new to me. Apparently Hagger identifies this daughter tentatively
>as Maud, but doesn't the chronology start to look a bit tight, if
>Walter died between 1238 and 1242 and this Maud is Rohese's daughter
>by Theobald, whom she married late 1225 or later? I wondered if
>Hagger was clear that Maud was Rohese's daughter by Theobald, rather
>than possibly being her daughter by the supposed previous marriage,
>as we've discussed previously.
Frankly, I don't see any sign that Hagger is persuaded about this
putative marriage. For my money, the single document in which it
appears is so vague and so much a one-off -- and the confusion among
the de Lacys (one of which I've mention, on Hagger's own part, and I
can name another) is so great that without further evidence I would
personally wish to set it aside as not in itself very secure data
about Roesia's biography. (The other confusion I have in mind, off
hand, appears in Hagger's index, which includes 5 references to
"Verdun, Matilda de, Roesia's daughter", when two of these are in
fact, I believe, to Matilda the da. of Lescelina de Verdun who m.
Hugh II de Lacy. Hagger need not have created the index, of course,
but would probably wish to take responsibility for it.)
>(3) I don't remember having seen the information about the manor of
>Wilsford being of Clemence's inheritance before. I couldn't see any
>clues about Philip le Butler in connection with the two other manors
>we knew about - Steepel Lavington and Stoke Farthing. Perhaps
>Wilsford would be an alternative lead.
Does this mean that you've checked Hagger's sources (I haven't - yet)
and found Philip missing? E.g. CLR, 1245-51, p111; CRR, vol. 17, no
1462; and CIPM, vol. 2, no. 6.
>(Incidentally, did I miss previously the information that Rohese was
>not only Philip le Butler's granddaughter but his heir?
I think not, and took this as one of Hagger's fresh contributions.
>Unless he had holdings other than these three Wiltshire manors we
>know of, it looks as though he was a fairly small man.
Yes, that was part of my point in my reply to your earlier remark
about why Clemence would have been singled out for mention.
>Is this in itself some indirect indication that Nicholas may have
>married his daughter before he succeeded to the Verdun estates in
>1199?)
Could be, and interesting, though I'm not sure which/what signif you
take from it. Unless it's part of your next point --
>(4) I thought the strongest point of the chronological argument
>against Clemence being a candidate as the mother of Joan was the
>indication that this could have made Nicholas quite a bit younger
>than his wife. It would be interesting to know if Hagger's work
>gives any more accurate indication when Nicholas was born.
>Previously we had his elder brother's birth c.1174, and then some
>information from Burke that seems to push Nicholas' birth into the
>mid-1180s. But I think some doubt was then expressed about that.
Hagger, p. 59: "He had apparently gained official seisin of his lands
in England by 1200 when Richard de Camvill and Eustachia, his wife
and Thomas de Verdun's widow, brought a plea against him over 40
librates of land which Eustachia claimed as her dower."
[Footnote: "Journal of the William Salt Archeological Society
(1879-1935), 3/1, p. 71. In 1200, Gerard de Camvill paid £1000
'for having the wife of Thomas de Verdun with her land, and for
her marrying of Richard his son' (Pipe Roll, 2 John, p. 87)]"
Nicholas is clearly active on business both in England and overseas,
1203-04 (and perhaps before).
Well, there's a lot to be pondering here; see what you think...!
Cris
--
Vickie Elam White
>I think we can believe that Joan was at first kept from knowing who her
>mother was. That seems evident from the papal decree that showed her
>simply as being the daughter of an unmarried woman and King John when
>he was unmarried.
There you go with another conspiracy theory! Are you a frustrated
mystery writer?
Vickie Elam White
Tim Powys-Lybbe
c...@windsong.u-net.com (Cristopher Nash) wrote:
<humungeous snip>
> 1.1.1.1 Bertram III de Verdun
> b. ca. 1137-8; d. 24 August 1192, Jaffa. Succeeded 1152/3. Married
> (1) Matilda, da. Earl Robert de Ferrers;
Have you any lever on which Robt. de Ferrers, earl of Derby this was?
The 1st earl died in 1139 and the 2nd in 1160 so both are candidates.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Paul C. Reed
[snip of much interesting stuff]
Thank you for the extensive post. It is good to see that much of what
we had come up with was independently verified. I was not happy
that Hagger did not seem to have identified Steeple Lavington (or did
I misread your wording?), and was also unaware that Maud married
d'Amundeville [de Mandeville] rather soon after FitzAlan's death.
And did Hagger actually suggest that Philip le Butiller was a cadet
of Theobald le Boteler's family?!
As Maud's son and heir was not born until 1246, but she was married
by 1242, one might argue she was still rather young at the time of
her marriage and did not become fertile until afterwards. If one
assumed Maud was born about 1227/8, and was twelve when first
married, that would be about 1239/40; she still could have married
Lacy first [is there any factual evidence of this?], and he died by
1242 [without issue by her]; she could still be daughter of Rohese
by Theobald le Boteler.
We know of the Wiltshire holdings from the Curia Regis Rolls,
which state that Rohese was granddaughter of Philip le Butiller,
and that Clemence was Philip's daughter. It might well be that
there were lands in other counties, it's just difficult to trace that
sort of thing at this period. Philip's holdings and Clemence's
inheritance are not necessarily limited to Wiltshire. Also, does
the wording state that Rohese was heir of Philip, and Clemence
thus heir as well, or could these lands in Wiltshire be the
right of Clemence as a gift in free marriage?
A final point, if we assume that Joan was daughter of Clemence
le Butiller, how are we to explain what Joan was doing
IN FRANCE
when John sent for her in 1203? It's a question that needs to be
answered in a credible way.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/01 6:39:13 PM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< A final point, if we assume that Joan was daughter of Clemence
le Butiller, how are we to explain what Joan was doing
IN FRANCE, when John sent for her in 1203? It's a question that needs to be
answered in a credible way. >>
Hello Paul,
If we were to assume the above, then would that not also be answered by the
placement of children with others to be brought up? One would not think that
Clementia brought the girl up at all. She was not even mentioned by name in
the decree. John and the his rat pack were in France much of the time ...
they thought France to be a more civil place to be than Saxon-infested and
chilly old England. They spoke French in court and at home.
Some others are ribbing me about seeing a conspiracy to hold the identity of
her mother from Joan. I don't know why they think such things would be a dark
thing like the word 'conspiracy' connotes. Actually, withholding information
is often a family practice even in common families.
I am not sold on the idea that Joan did not know who her mother was, but I
find it a little strange that the wording of the decree did not name her
mother. Was this a common practice, not to name the mother of an illegitimate
child, but to name the father? Or was this unusual?
-Ken
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Norr's "Some Early English Pedigrees", pg 127 shows this marriage.
> I do not know his source as I do not have the book.
"31 (1174) NICHOLAS de VERDUN: . . . . md DAU. (1178) of Walter
de Lacy (the gr.f.of #30 next). (For descent, see V.C.H. Bucks
v3p227 and V.C.H. Warwicks v6p276--CPv12p247fn)
30 (1200) ROHESE de VERDUN, d.of Nicholas and gr.d.of (a) Walter
de Lacy; md WILLIAM Lord Verdun, the f.of #29 --Hv16p312 +Dates,
(but s.of #32--Hv16); md 4 Sep 1225 (prob. 2dh)THEOBALD BOTILLER,
1200-1230 July 19, 6 in 1206 --CPv1p239 +v12.2p247 +Gns v25p75
(see #29 below)
MAUD BOTILLER (Butler) (1226)-1283; md JOHN FITZALAN
(1222) --CPv1 +Ev7p228, under #33, p.25
. . . . .
DAUGHTER (1230+/-) pf Theobald, "md" WALTER de LACY (1228)-
1241 s.p. --BGTv36p132, s.of #30a, p.82
29 1223 JOHN de VERDUN . . ."
What a mess.
taf
Douglas Richardson
> Cristopher Nash wrote:
> [snip of much interesting stuff]
>
> which state that Rohese was granddaughter of Philip le Butiller,
> and that Clemence was Philip's daughter. It might well be that
> there were lands in other counties, it's just difficult to trace that
> sort of thing at this period. Philip's holdings and Clemence's
> inheritance are not necessarily limited to Wiltshire. Also, does
> the wording state that Rohese was heir of Philip, and Clemence
> thus heir as well, or could these lands in Wiltshire be the
> right of Clemence as a gift in free marriage?
>
> A final point, if we assume that Joan was daughter of Clemence
> le Butiller, how are we to explain what Joan was doing
> IN FRANCE
> when John sent for her in 1203? It's a question that needs to be
> answered in a credible way.
>
> Paul
You've asked a good question, Paul. Maybe the answer is that Clemence
le Boteler's father, Philip le Boteler, was French, rather than
English. We know that people held property on both sides of the
Channel in this period. There's no reason why Philip le Boteler
couldn't have been French. If so, that could explain why his daughter
had a given name, Clemence, which I believe is more common in French
families in this period than in English families. If someone has
access to the published French royal charters for this period, perhaps
something on Philip le Boteler might turn up in them. Philip le
Boteler might well be like Fawkes de Breaute, one of King's notorious
henchmen. Fawkes was a Frenchman with English ancestry. Just a
thought.
Paul C. Reed
> In a message dated 12/10/01 6:39:13 PM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
>
> << A final point, if we assume that Joan was daughter of Clemence
> le Butiller, how are we to explain what Joan was doing
> IN FRANCE, when John sent for her in 1203? It's a question that needs to be
> answered in a credible way. >>
>
> Hello Paul,
>
> If we were to assume the above, then would that not also be answered by the
> placement of children with others to be brought up?
No, my understanding follows that of John Carmi Parsons, from whom
I quoted the other day. In a case such as this, if Joan were born in
England, it would not be expected that she, as an illegitimate daughter,
would be sent to France to be reared. That was not even typical of
the daughters of English nobles at that period, to my understanding.
> I am not sold on the idea that Joan did not know who her mother was, but I
> find it a little strange that the wording of the decree did not name her
> mother. Was this a common practice, not to name the mother of an illegitimate
> child, but to name the father? Or was this unusual?
I do not see why the decree would have mentioned her mother. The
subject was Joan and the condictions legitimizing her. There was
no reason for the Pope of Papal legates to suppress the identity of the
mother. But there was no reason to mention the mother either.
Paul
Chris Phillips
> "31 (1174) NICHOLAS de VERDUN: . . . . md DAU. (1178) of Walter
> de Lacy (the gr.f.of #30 next). (For descent, see V.C.H. Bucks
> v3p227 and V.C.H. Warwicks v6p276--CPv12p247fn)
>
> 30 (1200) ROHESE de VERDUN, d.of Nicholas and gr.d.of (a) Walter
> de Lacy; md WILLIAM Lord Verdun, the f.of #29 --Hv16p312 +Dates,
> (but s.of #32--Hv16); md 4 Sep 1225 (prob. 2dh)THEOBALD BOTILLER,
> 1200-1230 July 19, 6 in 1206 --CPv1p239 +v12.2p247 +Gns v25p75
> (see #29 below)
>
> MAUD BOTILLER (Butler) (1226)-1283; md JOHN FITZALAN
> (1222) --CPv1 +Ev7p228, under #33, p.25
> . . . . .
> DAUGHTER (1230+/-) pf Theobald, "md" WALTER de LACY (1228)-
> 1241 s.p. --BGTv36p132, s.of #30a, p.82
>
> 29 1223 JOHN de VERDUN . . ."
>
>
>
> What a mess.
I don't know what most of those abbreviations mean, but a quick look at
Complete Peerage vol.12 [part 2] p.247, footnote [a] shows that the
statement that Nicholas married a daughter of Walter de Lacy is a
misunderstanding of what CP says.
It says "John de Verdun, 2nd son of Theobald Butler, or le Botiller (who d.
19 July 1230, in Poitou), being 1st s. by his 2nd wife, Rohese,(a) da. and
h. of Nicholas de Verdun, of Alton, Staffs, &c, was b. about 1226.(c) In
May-June 1244 he was to be given his wife's share of the lands of her
grandfather, Walter de Lacy, lord of Meath..."
The wife in question was John's wife Margery, not Theobald's wife Rohese -
the text further on explicitly says that Margery was the granddaughter of
Walter de Lacy, Lord of Meath!
The VCH references seem to have been lifted verbatim from footnote a: "For
the descent of Nicholas ... see V.C.H. Bucks, vol.iii, p.227; cf. Warwicks,
vol. vi, p.276."
Incidentally, footnote c calls Maud the sister of the whole blood of this
John, though without citing any evidence we're not already aware of.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> Following my fairly massive double posting in starting this thread
yesterday --
Thanks for those further comments.
> And seeing that the postings were inclined to be taken as part of the
> search for the mother of Joan, mother of Gwladys Ddu, with a
> particular bias toward the hope of the discovery of royal parentage,
> I need to put up-front where I'm coming from, so that any comments I
> make as we go along will be best understood.
I think that has been the focus of most of the discussion so far - or at
least, the question of identifyinmg Joan's mother has been the focus. I'm
happy to side with the "don't knows" on the evidence so far - and with the
"probably never will knows" - but I think it's interesting to try to clarify
the possibilities. (Certainly I have no personal interest in establishing a
particular parentage for either Joan or Gladys.)
> What appears to many to be a
> special case -- i.e. the king sponsors Susanna's upbringing by
> Nicholas and Clemence (Boteler) de Verdun -- is not evidence that the
> king had any particular interest in this child (as hostage or for any
> other reason) rather than that, quite simply and taking the most
> economical account into consideration first, he supported the
> interests of Llywellyn and of Nicholas de Verdun.
...
> And of course it constitutes no
> evidence whatsoever that any other child, whether his own or anyone
> else's and whether by some Clemence or not, has anything whatsoever
> to do with any Verdun.
I think it's fair to say that on the evidence presented here so far. People
have expressed a number of different views about this transaction.
I'd love to see a little survey of how frequent orders like this were in the
period, how often they mention wives, how often those to whom custody were
related to the child, and so on. Admittedly, that would be quite a big task
(some parts bigger than others).
I wrote:
> >(3) I don't remember having seen the information about the manor of
> >Wilsford being of Clemence's inheritance before. I couldn't see any
> >clues about Philip le Butler in connection with the two other manors
> >we knew about - Steepel Lavington and Stoke Farthing. Perhaps
> >Wilsford would be an alternative lead.
Cris wrote:
> Does this mean that you've checked Hagger's sources (I haven't - yet)
> and found Philip missing? E.g. CLR, 1245-51, p111; CRR, vol. 17, no
> 1462; and CIPM, vol. 2, no. 6.
I only meant that in what I'd seen so far about Steeple (Market) Lavington
and Stoke Farthing there don't seem to be any clues beyond what Paul Reed
found in the Curia Regis roll. I have checked the VCH for Wiltshire but not
a great deal more. CIPM vol.2 no 6 is the inquisition of Robert Waleraund,
which recites Clemence's gift of Steeple Lavington to Maud, and Mau'd grant
to Robert. CRR vol.17, no 1462 is the Curia Regis Roll that Paul found. I
haven't seen CLR, 1245-51, p.111 (is that a Liberate Roll?).
Chris Phillips
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/11/01 1:40:31 AM, rp...@uswest.net writes:
<< I do not see why the decree would have mentioned her mother. The
subject was Joan and the condictions legitimizing her. There was
no reason for the Pope of Papal legates to suppress the identity of the
mother. But there was no reason to mention the mother either >>
Perhaps I should rephrase the question. In such decrees that make a
previously illegitimate child legitimate byh decree. how often is it that
both parents are mentioned or only one is mentioned. This is not the only
such decree. How are others worded?
<< if Joan were born in England, it would not be expected that she, as an
illegitimate daughter, would be sent to France to be reared. That was not
even typical of
the daughters of English nobles at that period, to my understanding. >>
Do we know that Joan was born in England when we do not even know the date of
her birth? And who said she was the daughter of an English noble? Would not
the name Clementia more likely be a French family that may have had land in
both sides of thr channel?
-Ken
Kay Allen AG
This work is on film through the Family History Center System and I know there
is at least one near you.
Kay Allen AG
Gryphon801
necessary to mention the mother at all.
Paul C. Reed
> Do we know that Joan was born in England when we do not even know the date of
> her birth? And who said she was the daughter of an English noble? Would not
> the name Clementia more likely be a French family that may have had land in
> both sides of thr channel?
>
> -Ken
We do not know that Joan was born in France, or England, but we do
know that she was in France when John sent for her in 1203.
I am in complete agreement with John Carmi Parsons. He summised
that the most logical interpretation of this would be that Joan was
born and raised in France until such time as she was summoned. I
also agree with John that there is no reason to suppose that John had
sent Joan to France, only to recall her later. John also observed
that though the name Clemence is uncommon in England, it
occurs much more frequently in France. Given that John was
Count of Mortain, in Normandy, and spent much time in France
about the time Joan was born, it all seems to indicate that
France would be the most likely place of Joan's conception,
birth and early fosterage.
Henry I had made good use of many of his illegitimate
children (marriages for political alliance to nobles with
whom the possible descent of the crown would not
become a concern [because of the illegitimacey], etc.),
so it may be that Joan was at least not indigent, but
educated in the ways of court, perhaps being raised
in someone's household.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
> I'm
> happy to side with the "don't knows" on the evidence so far - and with the
> "probably never will knows" - but I think it's interesting to try to clarify
> the possibilities.
I am also in the camp that at this point, we do not know. I live in great
hope, however, that in our lifetime the incredibly valuable assize and
eyre records [which survive from 1201] will become indexed in some
way. With so many record types which are not yet readily available,
I think there is still an amazing amount of infuriation that will
eventually surface, and so many things will be filled in. Sometimes
later lawsuits or things like the Hundred Rolls will explain why
particular land was held [just as the Curia Regis suit over rent
revealed the identity of Clemence le Butiller's father]. So I am
an optimist.
> I'd love to see a little survey of how frequent orders like this were in the
> period, how often they mention wives, how often those to whom custody were
> related to the child, and so on. Admittedly, that would be quite a big task
> (some parts bigger than others).
A great difficulty here is that we are at an early period in the formation
of English law and practice. Another difficulty is that this was a
placement for education and rearing, rather than the typical hostage
situation where an heir was placed in royal custody (and sometimes
starved to death in a dungeon), and not the typical case of a
female ward being placed for education, her marriage or lands
granted, etc., and not the typical placement of a noble girl as a
favor of the king, because she was also his niece (though there
was no chance of her inheriting the crown, should the rest of
her relatives go down in a ship).
I even began skimming through the CCR weeks ago, and looking
for a comparison with what occurred with female wards mentioned
in CIPM, but frankly did not have the time to pursue it. It would be
worthy of a paper in a historical journal (and welcomed by us, of
course).
Paul
The...@aol.com
Hello Paul,
Do we have a date in 1203 as to when Joan was sent to England from
Normandy? This would be interesting and possibly enlightening - John himself
was in Normandy during most of that year, in Le Mans in January but then
moving into Normandy near Argentan and not leaving Normandy (although this
time, for good) on 5 December. As recorded by Giraldus Cambrensis and the
author of the Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal, John was clearly in the
process of losing hold of Normandy during that year, so it would seem Joan's
relocation to England was part of the overall process of collapse.
As to the issue of Henry I's issue, it may be that he thought the
alliances of his illegitimate brood would not complicate the matter of
succession - however, immediate prior history does not mesh well with this
presumption. The 70-year period preceding Henry I's death involved several
problematic dynastic problems:
A. The forceful taking of the English throne by a bastard (his own
father);
B. The lengthy contest for the throne between two brothers (his own,
being
Robert 'Curthose' and William 'Rufus') ;
C. His own acquisition of the English throne on the death of William
'Rufus',
in place of his absent elder brother Robert, in 1100 [the
resolution of
their claims not being decided except on the field of battle in
1106,
at Tinchebrai].
Henry I's evident desire was for the succession of his son (or at
least one of his sons), and failing that, the succession of his daughter
Matilda. He knew full well, little was guaranteed as to the English
succession, else he would not have required baronial agreement to Matilda's
succession before his death. Do we know, in the event of Matilda's death,
that he would not prefer the accession of his son Robert (the bastard known
as Robert de Caen, the Earl of Gloucester) over any available nephew ?
Best regards,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
MWelch8442
was still alive. Mike Welch
Paul C. Reed
> As Maud's son and heir was not born until 1246, but she was married
> by 1242, one might argue she was still rather young at the time of
> her marriage and did not become fertile until afterwards. If one
> assumed Maud was born about 1227/8, and was twelve when first
> married, that would be about 1239/40; she still could have married
> Lacy first [is there any factual evidence of this?], and he died by
> 1242 [without issue by her]; she could still be daughter of Rohese
> by Theobald le Boteler.
The source which states that Rohese's daughter married Walter de
Lacy seems to make it certain that Maud was a daughter of
Theobald le Boteler. The source, Register of the Abbey of St.
Thomas, Dublin (Rolls Series, 1889), 420, is an account of the
family of Hugh de Lacy, conqueror of Meath, and ends:
Iste idem Gilbertus habuit filium nomine Walterum
et duas filias Margaretam et Matildam.
Qui Walterus desponsavit filiam domine Royse de
Verdon, procreatam a domino Teobaldo Pincerna, et
idem Walterus decessit sine prole.
Propter hoc toa Midia [Meath] devoluta fuit ad dictas duas
sorores, quarum seniorem desponsavit dominus Johannes
de Verdon, qui fuit filius Teobaldi Pincerne et Rosee
de Verdon; et juniorem desponsavit Petrus de Geneyvill,
quo defuncto, postea desponsata fuit domino
Galfrido de Genevyle [Joinville].
This states that the daughter of Rohese de Verdun, by
Theobald le Boteler, was espoused to Walter de Lacy, but he
died without issue [by 1241]. She need only be seven, and
if born about 1228, would have attained the age of seven
about 1235. Given the political ties an rationale of trying
to settle the dispute over lands that had arisen between the
Verduns and Hugh de Lacy, the matches make sense.
John de Verdun, son and heir of Rohese (second wife of
Theobald le Boteler, or Butler), was born about 1226. He
married (1), by 14 May 1244 [probably between that date
and 19 Feb. 1243/4], Margery de Lacy, elder daughter of
Gilbert de Lacy of Ewyas Lacy, Herefordshire, heir of
the Lordship of Meath, Ireland.
CP 12:ii:248 states that Gilbert de Lacy d.v.p. between
12 Aug. and 25 Dec. 1230, and that his father Walter de
Lacy d.s.p.m.s. shortly before 24 Feb. 1240/1, leaving
his granddaughter Margery as coheir [which would
mean the younger Walter must have been dead by that
date].
G. W. Watson, in an article in The Genealogist [London]
21:1-5, shows that Walter de Lacy was alive 15 May 1238,
when his grandfather acknowledged him as heir, but dead
by 24 Feb. 1240/1. His widow, Maud de Verdun, married
John FitzAlan within the next year.
Watson cites the Annals of Ireland, 1162-1370, 2:315 for the
statement that "Walterus de Lacy dominus Midie decessit
in Anglia, relinquens post se duas filias [sic] suas heredes,
quarem primam maritavit dominus Theobaldus de Verdon,
secundum desponsavit Galfridus de Genevile." The sheriffs
of Herefordshire and Shropshire were ordered to take his
lands into the king's hands on 24 Feb. 1240/1 [Rot. Fin.].
We seem to have a more accurate account of this family
than any secondary source I've seen.
Paul
Paul C. Reed
(who was trying to extort a large amount of money from him
and other barons). In consequence, as he was wont to do,
John took Bertram de Verdun as a hostage in 1215. The
question is, was Bertram the brother or son of Nicholas?
Or did Nicholas have both a brother and son named
Bertram?
The Burton Chartulary [MSS of the Marquis of Anglesey],
f. 30, reads:
Venerabili viro et amico karissimo Domino Abbati de
Burtona etc. Nicholaus de Verdun salutem. Reverentiae
vestrae notum facimus nos dedisse Bertramo de Verdun
FRATRI nostro xx. s. quos de nobis recipimus annuatim
in Felda in excambiis cujusdam terrae in villa de
Munstertona quam dedimus cuidam domui hospitalis.
Quare vobis mandamus quatinas predictos denarios
annuatim persolvatis as terminos prestatutos eidem
Bertramo et heredibus suis sub eadem forma qua mihi
solvere solebatis. In cujus rei testimonium literas
nostras patentes vobis mittimus, valete.
[William Salt Arch. Soc., v. 5:i:47 (1884)]
The same society, in 1937, published a "Descriptive
Catalogue of the Charters and Muniments belonging
to the Marquis of Anglesey" which includes two very
similar charters [p. 24, nos. 40, 41]:
"40. Grant by Nicholas de Verdun to Bertram de
Verdun his SON, of an annual rent of 20sh. which
the said Nicholas receives from the Abbot of
Burton, in Felde, for an agreement made between
Dom. Bertram de Verdun his FATHER and
Nicholas, formerly Abbot of Burton in respect of
the land and vacancy of the church of Stapenhulla,
which his said father quitclaimed in the king's
court, to the Abbot, etc. in exchange for seven
virgates of land in [Mun]streton, which he had of
the gift of Nicholas de Verdun, to hold by rent
to Abbot of a pound of incense yearly at the F.
of St. Martin.Witn.: Thomas, Abbot of
Crokesdon; Richard de Chisilamton; Geoffrey
Lutrel; Simon de Kiriol; Helias de Luterworth,
etc. [Ante 1192.]"
"41. Grant by Nicholas de Verdun to Bortram
[sic] his brother, of yearly rent of 20sh. due
from the Abbot of Burton, in exchange for seven
virgates of land in Munsterton which he had by
grant from the said Nicholas; to hold by service
of 2lbs. of incense at the F. of St. Andrew, one
pound, and at the F. of St. John Baptist, one
pound.
Witn.: Henry de Aldithel'; Milo de Verdun;
Philip de Essebi; William de Ferariis; Ralph
de Charneles; Henry de Deneston, etc.
Late 12th cent."
I wonder about the estimated dates given
by the editor.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
No, Eleanor died in 1204 in France and Gwladys died in 1251. Henry III was
king when she died. This is during the time that Henry alienated Simon de
Montford -- 1248-1252.
The earliest charter for Windsor is from Edward I in 1377 -- 25 years after
Gwladys died there.
The Baron's wars were on going in this period. Windsor was the center of
activity for disputes between the barons and the king.
In 1251, when Gwladys died, Gwladys 2nd husband, Ralph Mortimer had been dead
for five years. Her son Roger was only 20, but married to the older Maude de
Braose. Roger became the Sheriff of Hereford. One can only speculate on why
Gwladys was at Windsor, but it must have been in support of her son -- her
only living relative -- and the relations between the barons and Henry III.
Henry favored land grants at the king's pleasure and this was unpopular with
the barons -- this Windsor was a meeting place for such discussions.
-Ken
Douglas Richardson
As I recall, Windsor Castle was a royal residence as early as the
reign of King Henry I. Possibly someone can post something on the
history of Windsor.
Douglas Richardson
Paul C. Reed
"40. Grant by Nicholas de Verdun to Bertram de
Verdun his SON, of an annual rent of 20sh. which
the said Nicholas receives from the Abbot of
Burton, in Felde, for an agreement made between
Dom. Bertram de Verdun his FATHER and
Nicholas,
Witn.: Thomas, Abbot of
Crokesdon; Richard de Chisilamton; Geoffrey
Lutrel; Simon de Kiriol; Helias de Luterworth,
etc. [Ante 1192.]"
Paul
Paul C. Reed
Verdun his SON, of an annual rent of 20sh. which
the said Nicholas receives from the Abbot of
Burton, in Felde, for an agreement made between
Dom. Bertram de Verdun his FATHER and
Nicholas,
Witn.: Thomas, Abbot of
Crokesdon; Richard de Chisilamton; Geoffrey
Lutrel; Simon de Kiriol; Helias de Luterworth,
etc. [Ante 1192.]"
"41. Grant by Nicholas de Verdun to Bortram
[sic] his brother, of yearly rent of 20sh. due
from the Abbot of Burton,
Witn.: Henry de Aldithel'; Milo de Verdun;
Philip de Essebi; William de Ferariis; Ralph
de Charneles; Henry de Deneston, etc.
Late 12th cent."
Heleigh, Stafford, was born about 1175, d. 1246,
m. 1217, gave land to Croxton Abbey in the 1230s
[VCH Staff. v. 3].
Clearly the estimated dates of the editor
are considerably off.
Paul
Chris Phillips
<<
As I recall, Windsor Castle was a royal residence as early as the
reign of King Henry I. Possibly someone can post something on the
history of Windsor.
>>
I did look into a couple of books on the history of Windsor today. It seems
that the castle was originally built by William the Conqueror, and that the
Anglo-Saxon kings also had a palace nearby.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
already "Re:...", I may still be missing something here]
Paul Reed wrote:
<<
As I posted before, Nicholas de Verdun rebelled against John
(who was trying to extort a large amount of money from him
and other barons). In consequence, as he was wont to do,
John took Bertram de Verdun as a hostage in 1215. The
question is, was Bertram the brother or son of Nicholas?
Or did Nicholas have both a brother and son named
Bertram?
>>
Thanks for that interesting evidence. Unless I'm misunderstanding, it does
look as though one of the transcripts is in error, as they seem to be
referring to the same transaction - so either a son or a brother, but not
both?
Either way, as you suggest, the suggested date of "before 1192" would have
both of them minors, even if brothers.
I'm afraid I can't help with dating any of the other witnesses, but can I
ask a different question that struck me, regarding one of them?
"Simon de Kiriol" occurs as a witness in the second abstract. Now Bertram
was apparently a pretty uncommon name at this time, and Bertram de Criol is
about the only other one that springs to my mind. Nicholas is another name
that turns up in the same family in the 13th century.
Is there any known relationships between the Criols and Verduns that might
explain this?
Chris Phillips
Reedpcgen
evening, but none have appeared on my newsserver, so I'll try again from this
account.]
I wanted to remark tha Thomas, Abbot of Croxton, did not die until 1229.
Henry de Aldithley/Audley was born about 1175, built the castle of Heleigh,
Stafford, m. 1217, and died in 1246. He was giving land to Croxton Abbey in
the 1230s.
The details of the different charters [the feast days and payments] seem
slightly different, if you look at the details, so it is difficult to determine
that they are variations of the same grant, or an earlier grant to a brother,
who died without issue, and then the same going later to a son. As Henry de
Aldithley was not born until about 1175, and Nicholas did not succeed until
1199, I would think it likely the grants were after 1200, not earlier.
Paul
Blair Southerden
the district of Windsor and Maidenhead in the county of Berkshire, England.
The castle occupies 13 acres (5 hectares) of ground above the north bank of
the River Thames. Windsor Castle comprises two quadrilateral-shaped building
complexes, or courts, that are separated by the Round Tower. The latter is a
massive circular tower that is built on an artificial mound and is visible
for many miles over the surrounding flatland. The court west of the Round
Tower is called the lower ward; the court to the east is called the upper
ward.
There was a royal residence at Windsor in Saxon times (c. 9th century).
William I the Conqueror developed the present site, constructing a mound
with a stockade about 1070. Henry II replaced this with the stone Round
Tower and added outer walls to the north, east, and south. In the 13th
century Henry III completed the south wall and the western end of the lower
ward and built a royal chapel on the site of the present-day Albert Memorial
Chapel. Edward III made this chapel the centre of the newly formed Order of
the Garter in 1348 and converted the fortress buildings in the upper ward to
residential apartments for the monarchs. These apartments were rebuilt by
Charles II and later reconstructed by George IV for use by visitors of state
in addition to the monarchs.
The lower ward includes St. George's Chapel and the Albert Memorial Chapel.
St. George's Chapel, designed to be the chapel of the Order of the Garter,
was begun by Edward IV and is one of the best examples of Perpendicular
Gothic-style architecture. It was completed in 1528 and restored between
1921 and 1930. It ranks next to Westminster Abbey as a royal mausoleum and
contains the bodies of Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VIII and Jane Seymour,
Charles I, Edward VII, and George V. The chapel also contains the impressive
insignia of the Knights of the Garter. Albert Memorial Chapel, built by
Henry VII as a royal mausoleum, was restored by Queen Victoria and named in
memory of her consort. In this chapel are buried George III, George IV, and
William IV.
The upper ward of the castle includes the private apartments of the monarch
and private apartments for visitors. The state apartments in the upper ward
include the Waterloo Chamber, St. George's Hall, and the grand reception
room. The upper ward is also the site of the royal library, which contains a
priceless collection of drawings by Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo,
Raphael, Hans Holbein the Younger, and other Old Masters. Fire destroyed the
northeast corner of the upper ward in November 1992. Most of the paintings,
furniture, and other movable treasures were saved, but more than 100 rooms,
including St. George's Hall, were destroyed or damaged. A successful
restoration of the affected area was completed in 1997.
Adjacent to the castle on the south, east, and north is Home Park, which
consists of approximately 500 acres (200 hectares) of parkland. Frogmore,
the site of the mausoleum of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, lies within
the park. South of the castle lies the Great Park, with about 1,800 acres
(700 hectares). The Long Walk, a 3-mile (5-kilometre) avenue leading into
the Great Park, was planted by Charles II in 1685; its aging elm trees were
replaced by younger trees in 1945. Virginia Water, an artificial lake, lies
at the southern boundary.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page557.asp
> ______________________________
D. Spencer Hines
Family, spend most of her time at Windsor ---- or does she travel?
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Blair Southerden" <blai...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:008a01c18630$5ed2a5a0$9b9793c3@iunfd...
Renia
> Does the Queen Mother, surely the most beloved member of the Royal
> Family, spend most of her time at Windsor ---- or does she travel?
She has her own pad, Clarence House, a few hundred yards from her
daughter's residencewhere she hangs out, and has the good taste to drink
gin. At 100 years of age, she rarely travels anywhere these days.
Renia
> Deus Vult.
Deo Volente
D. Spencer Hines
an Old Fashioned glass.
She was described by her father ---- an elderly Southern gentleman ----
as the only white woman he had ever seen do that.
That was HIS comment NOT mine.
I take it the phenomenon is quite common in England, among, shall we
say ---- women of a certain class.
N'est-ce pas?
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C1D1758...@btinternet.com...
Blair Southerden
Palace (just of The Mall in London). She also owns Glamis Castle in
Scotland where she usually spends some of he summer, before joining the
royal family at Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire.
The royal family spend the early summer in Windsor (for Ascot week and some
of the traditional ceremonies such as the Ceremony of the Order of the
Garter) as well as many weekends throughout the year. One would know if
the Queen is in residence by the Royal Standard flying at the particular
royal palace.
Blair
> ______________________________
D. Spencer Hines
Good Info.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Blair Southerden" <blai...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:012301c1868a$a32c8fe0$9b9793c3@iunfd...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote:
As your resident Windsor correspondent, it occurred to me that the
answer might be in the guide book, which I just happen to have in my
possession (and found in its correct place on my shelves).
In the Guide there is a time line showing:
1080, William I: Construction in earth and timber begins; present plan
established
1170, Henry II: Castle largely rebuilt in stone with square towers in
curtain wall, and Round Tower on motte.
1220, Henry II: West wall rebuilt in stone and five rounded towers added
to curtain wall,
1240-1340, Henry III: Royal Chapel constructed on site of present Albert
Memorial Chapel in Lower Ward.
1358-1368, Edward III: Upper Ward reconstructed as large royal place
with new St George's Hall and 'Norman Gate'
1475-1483, Edward IV: St George's Chapel and new Cloisters built.
1511, Henry VIII: New gate to Lower Ward built.
1550, Mary I: Military Knights Houses in Lower ward constructed.
1580: Elizabeth I: Long Gallery added to State Apartments (now Royal
Library)
And in off-topic later centuries the living quarters gained considerable
improvements. Sumptious is the word, from re-examinging the photos of
the state apartments.
One thought is that the Tudor monarchs used Nonsuch and Hampton Court as
their ornate living quarters. I get the impression that Windsor still
had overtones of its original function as a fortress. Certainly in the
17th century (or so) the town of Windsor, beside the castle, was
infamous for its revolting stench, hardly conducive to gracious living.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Renia
> I once knew a very foxy lady who drank only gin and water, with ice, in
> an Old Fashioned glass.
>
> She was described by her father ---- an elderly Southern gentleman ----
> as the only white woman he had ever seen do that.
>
> That was HIS comment NOT mine.
>
> I take it the phenomenon is quite common in England, among, shall we
> say ---- women of a certain class.
>
> N'est-ce pas?
Don't know, but 2, twice a day, at 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock is the usual
prescription. With tonic and a slice. Ice, if your teeth can take it.
Renia
> Deus Vult.
Deo Volente
[Just get rid of this lot]
D. Spencer Hines
Wrong formula for the foxy lady ---- as I clearly stated.
Different Drink.
NOT a Gin and Tonic.
Back To Reading Comprehension 101.
Report Grade.
Await Further Instructions.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3C1D3AF2...@btinternet.com...
Cristopher Nash
I'd like to respond to a few of the issues/questions that have
recently arisen under this header and <Missing posts>, but in order
to do it a bit more intelligently (and to avoid repeating what others
may already have said), I wonder if there's a chance of someone's
posting <Paul Reed's interesting contributions on Bertram, son and/or
brother of Nicholas de Verdun, from 12 and 14 December> on this
site? I'm afraid I'm another who's failed to receive them and there
may be others who'd like to follow the discussion. (Don't hesitate
to say if this is too difficult - we can obviously all chase them
down vie the google route.)
Cheers,
Cris
--
Amanda Jones
(Renia) wrote:
> She has her own pad, Clarence House, a few hundred yards from her
> daughter's residencewhere she hangs out, and has the good taste to
> drink
> gin. At 100 years of age, she rarely travels anywhere these days.
101 last August.
Amanda
Sally Laine
family home now owned by her great nephew. She owns (or did, she turned it
over to the National Trust for when she dies) Castle Mey further north.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "Blair Southerden" <blai...@globalnet.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Windsor Castle (was Gladys Dhu's death at Windsor, Berkshire)
> HM Queen Elizabeth's main residence is Clarence House, opposite St James'
> Palace (just of The Mall in London). She also owns Glamis Castle in
> Scotland where she usually spends some of he summer, before joining the
> royal family at Balmoral Castle in Aberdeenshire.
>
> The royal family spend the early summer in Windsor (for Ascot week and
some
> of the traditional ceremonies such as the Ceremony of the Order of the
> Garter) as well as many weekends throughout the year. One would know if
> the Queen is in residence by the Royal Standard flying at the particular
> royal palace.
>
> Blair
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 5:21 PM
> > ______________________________
>
>
Paul C. Reed
Cristopher Nash wrote:
> Just back from a few days in Cambridge and sorry to be late in this,
> I'd like to respond to a few of the issues/questions that have
> recently arisen under this header and <Missing posts>, but in order
> to do it a bit more intelligently (and to avoid repeating what others
> may already have said), I wonder if there's a chance of someone's
> posting <Paul Reed's interesting contributions on Bertram, son and/or
> brother of Nicholas de Verdun, from 12 and 14 December> on this
> site? I'm afraid I'm another who's failed to receive them and there
> may be others who'd like to follow the discussion. (Don't hesitate
> to say if this is too difficult - we can obviously all chase them
> down vie the google route.)
Try the url above for the complete thread. In thinking on it, it
now seems almost odd that Nicholas would bother giving an
only son and heir a rent of 20 shilllings. I think son must be an
error for brother.
Paul
Reedpcgen
>I'd like to respond to a few of the issues/questions that have
>recently arisen under this header and <Missing posts>, but in order
>to do it a bit more intelligently (and to avoid repeating what others
>may already have said),
Check out the following URL [no spaces]:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=a05100302b843025569f5%40%5B1
0.0.1.2%5D&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D25%26hl%3Den%26group%3Dsoc.genealogy.medie
val%26start%3D0%26group%3Dsoc.genealogy.medieval
This will give you the entire thread. I posted this earlier today from my
other account, but it never showed up. If I do not reply to any particular
post, it may be that I have not seen it.
Paul
Renia
Quite so!
Renia
Blair Southerden
Also, in the final para of my posting, the reference to the Royal Standard
relates to the ruling sovereign not the Queen Mother. Teach me to go OT?
> ______________________________
Graeme Wall
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:
> Does the Queen Mother, surely the most beloved member of the Royal
> Family, spend most of her time at Windsor ---- or does she travel?
>
She spends virtually no time at Windsor, her London home is Clarence House,
and in Scotland it is Glamis Castle. She spends Christmas at Sandringham
along with her two daughters and other memebers of the family.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Chris Phillips
Thanks for those further details from Hagger.
>>40. Grant by Nicholas de Verdun to Bertram de
>>Verdun his SON, of an annual rent of 20sh. which
>>the said Nicholas receives from the Abbot of
>>Burton, in Felde, for an agreement made between
>>Dom. Bertram de Verdun his FATHER and
>>Nicholas, formerly Abbot of Burton in respect of
>>the land and vacancy of the church of Stapenhulla,
>>which his said father quitclaimed in the king's
>>court, to the Abbot, etc. in exchange for seven
>>virgates of land in [Mun]streton, which he had of
>>the gift of Nicholas de Verdun, to hold by rent
>>to Abbot of a pound of incense yearly at the F.
>>of St. Martin.Witn.: Thomas, Abbot of
>>Crokesdon; Richard de Chisilamton; Geoffrey
>>Lutrel; Simon de Kiriol; Helias de Luterworth,
>>etc. [Ante 1192.]"
>
>Hagger gives 1188 for this agreement [Pipe Roll, 2 Rich I, p. 24].
Sorry to be slow, but is that 1188 for the agreement betweem Bertram,
Nicholas' father and Nicholas, abbot of Burton? I presume it must be, as on
the previous reckoning, Nicholas would have been about 12 or less in 1188...
Chris Phillips
Cristopher Nash
I'm sorry; yes I was speaking of an agreement of Bertram III's, but
was racing ahead of the game, and it's more complicated. There are
(at least) two Verdun agreements with the abbot of Burton affecting
Stapenhill, one of which is the one above. I referred
inappropriately to one (of 1188) in which Bertram III gave the abbey
'all his land in Stapenhill' in return for 'the service of Geoffrey
de St Maur and of his heirs and of his land of Field (Staffordshire)'
[William Salt Jnl 5/1, pp. 42-3; Staffs Rec Soc vol 1937, p. 21 --
per Hagger p. 56]. The citation of Pipe Roll 2 Rich I p. 24 should
be disregarded (and I can't say that the abbot of Burton at this time
was a Nicholas). The Misterton deal obviously happens later, after
Nicholas (de Verdun) has succeeded.
Incidentally, Hagger uses Rot. Lit. Claus. and I can't account for
his not having cited the de Somery connections.
It may be worth mentioning that there is another Bertram de Verdun
contemp. with Nicholas and whom Nicholas is likely to have known,
perhaps even 'in a family way' with or without knowing of what their
relationship was. Without claiming to have found the relationship,
Hagger (pp. 244-5) discusses Bertram de Verdun of the 'Norfolk
branch' of Verduns, who fl. 1185-1213, bro. of William de Verdun
(d.ca. 1213). Nicholas (as I mentioned) was brought up at the court
of Roger Bigod, E of Norfolk and 'Countess Idona'. (Hence my pun,
'in a family way', since probably a better word for what calls
Roger's 'court' would be 'familia'.)
Hagger writes (loc. cit.) of Keats-Rohan in support of there being a
family connection, but I'd prefer not to leap into the enterprise of
loosening up the translation of "FRATRI nostro" as a way of
straightening out the problem you're working on -- most notably
because I don't think it would.
Best,
Cris
--
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/19/01 5:25:30 PM, royala...@msn.com writes:
<< As I recall, Windsor Castle was a royal residence as early as the
reign of King Henry I. Possibly someone can post something on the
history of Windsor. >>
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page557.asp
Someone already did, but it sheds no light on why Gwladys was there because
it does not go into the Baron's Wars. The castle was used for meetings to
resolve issues between the angry barons and Henry III at this time as far as
I can see. I am not certain what date Gwladys' son Roger was made sheriff.
That would be good to know, as it might explain why she was there.
- Ken