Savage of Stainsby, and Avenel of Eskdale: a Ferrers descent ?
John P. Ravilious
Dear Alex, Hap, et al.,
Two items of note, one factual and one potential,
following on the earlier posts concerning the ancestry of
Sir John de Graham of Dalkeith, &c. (d. 1337).
First, the relationship of the Avenels of Eskdale, and
their Graham descendants, to the Avenel paramour of William
'the Lion', King of Scots (d. 1214) is reflected in the
following chart. This does not provide any other
relationship to the royal house of Scotland (the Comyn
ancestry of the Grahams aside), but it does show a near
kinship with the de Ros family, of Helmsley, Wark, &c.
Sir William de Ros of Helmsley (d. ca. 1264) and his
brother, Sir Robert de Ros of Wark, were in fact 2nd
cousins of the Avenel wife of Sir Henry de Graham of
Dalkeith.
Robert Avenel = Sibyl [Sibilla]
lord of Eskdale I
d. 8 Mar 1184/5 I
________I___________
I I
William ~ NN Gervase Avenel = Sibyl
'the Lion' I lord of Eskdale I
K of I d. 1219 I
Scots I I
_____I _________________________I_________
I I I I I
Isabel Gervase Roger Robert William
= 1) Sir Robert (dvp) lord of clerk
de Brus (dsp) Eskdale
= 2) Sir Robert d. 1243
I de Ros I
__I______________ I
I I I
Sir William Sir Robert NN = Sir Henry de Graham
de Ros of de Ros I of Dalkeith
Helmsley of Wark I d. aft 5 Feb 1283/4
d. ca. 1264 d. 1269 I
I I I
V V V
The other item alluded to above involves the Avenel
family and their otherwise unidentified relations. On 13
June 1213, King John of England ordered a number of
hostages of the King of Scotland be released by their
hosts, to be delivered to the King (of England) at
Portsmouth. One such letter is detailed in Bain's Calendar
of Documents Pertaining to Scotland, addressed to Saier de
Quincy, Earl of Winchester [1]. As Bain wrote, there were
" Similar letters written to Robert de Vaux concerning
the son of William de Vaux; to William de Mobray
concerning Nigel son of Philip de Mobray; to William son
of Walkelin concerning the son of Gervase Avenel;.." [2]
There has been much ink spilt in the past concerning
such transactions, and the relationships between the
hostages and their appointed hosts. In the case of the
1213 transactions, I have seen no hostage-host relationship
that did not also involve a known or discernable kinship,
save one: that of the son of Gervase Avenel (likely his
eldest son Gervase, who ob.v.p. before 1219) and William
fitz Walkelin.
William fitz Walkelin was most likely a near kinsman
of the family of de Ferrers, earls of Derby. He held
lands in Stainsby, Derbyshire, which he had obtained from
Henry II in 1170, and is recorded as continuing in his
tenure there in 1212 [3]. He died sometime before 4 April
1218, when Robert (le) Savage, husband of his deceased
daughter Hawise, fined to have seisin of her lands in
Lincolnshire [4].
One interesting possibility would place Sibyl, the
mother of Gervase Avenel 'the elder', as a daughter of
William de Ferrers, earl of Derby and his wife Sibyl
de Braose. This may be something of a stretch, but
the chronology would work. We know that this particular
William de Ferrers (d. at Acre before 21 Oct 1190) had
a kinsman, Henry son of Robert son of Wakelin, to whom
he granted lands of his aunt Letitia de Ferrers in
Passenham. Further, Earl William allegedly had a brother
Walkelin, the father of Robert fitz Walkelin, ancestor of
the Chaundos family (see SGM archives on this). The
possiblity that William fitz Walkelin was a brother of this
Robert would make it chronologically feasible (although
not nearly proven) that Gervase Avenel's son - possibly a
great-nephew of Earl William (d. 1190) and his brother
Walkelin - was being hosted by Earl William's nephew
William fitz Walkelin, a first cousin to Gervase Avenel
in June 1213.
The identifiation of the parentage of William fitz
Wakelin, and of his potential kinswoman (presumably Sibyl,
mother or wife of Gervase Avenel) would be of great
interest to the Graham and Douglas descendants of the
Avenels, and also to the Savage descendants of William
fitz Wakelin. Should anyone have additional thoughts or
documentation that either support or refute the above
conjecture, that would be of great interest.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] Bain, Calendar of Documents Pertaining to Scotland
I:100-101, cites Foedera I:113; and Close Roll 15
John, p. 1, m. 4. :
' 574. Concerning the K. of Scotland's hostages.
The K. to S[aher] earl of Winchester.
Commands him on receipt, immediately to send the
K. by good and safe messengers, Reginald his own son, and
the son of William de Veteripont, hostages of the K. of
Scotland, who are in his custody by the K.'s order; so that
they may be with the K. at Portsmouth on the vigil of St.
John Baptist instant. Beaulieu. '
[2] Ibid.
[3] Farrer wrote,
' It is worthy of note that the manor of Stainsby, co.
Derby, which was parcel of the Domesday fief of Roger of
Poitou, and was afterwards annexed to the Honour of
Lancaster, had escheated to the lord of the Honour before
1164, and was regranted by Henry II., in or before 1170,
to William fitz Walkeline, as a serjeanty (Lancashire
Pipe Rolls, p. 21). Afterwards it descended in the
family of Savage. ' [Farrer, Lancashire Inquests, p. 7]
Farrer further provided this from The Great Inquest of
Service, 1212, for Derbyshire:
' William, son of Wa[l]kelin, holds Stainesbi with the
appurtenances by rendrering yearly a certain sor hawk
by the gift of King Henry.
Count Roger held in Steinesbi and Tunestalle
12 bov. (f. 273 b). At Michaelmas, 1170, 9l. of
land in Stainsby, co. Derby, was delivered to
William fitz Walkeline, out of the farm of the
honour of Lancaster (Pipe Rolls, p. 20).
A.D. 1212 - William fitz Walkelin holds Steynesby
by one sor hawk. Gilbert fitz Reinfrid ought to
answer for the whole fee of Lancastre (Testa,
p. 23). ' [Farrer, Lancashire Inquests, p. 108]
[4] Texts courtesy of the Henry III Fine Rolls Project:
A. Fine dated at Westminster, 4 Apr 2 Hen III (1218):
'32 Lincolnshire. Robert Savage has made fine with the
king by 25 m. for seisin of all of the land formerly of
Hawise daughter of William son of Walkelin in Lincoln,
which King Richard, uncle of King Henry, gave to her for
her marriage, and later Hawise was Robert's wife. He has
letters for having seisin to Simon Trussebut and Richard
Clerk, escheators of Lincolnshire. His pledges for the
fine are Alan de St. George and Robert son of Walkelin.
Witness as above. ' [Fine Rolls, Henry III, C 60/9, mem. 7]
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_009.html
B. Fine dated at Westminster, 28 April 3 Hen III (1219):
' 243a 28 April. Westminster. This fine is contained in
the roll for the second year and was sent to the Exchequer
at another time. Lincolnshire. Robert Savage has made fine
with the king by 25 m., for which Alan de St. George and
Robert son of Walkelin are his pledges, for having seisin
of all land formerly of Hawise daughter of William son of
Walkelin in Lincoln that King Richard, the king's uncle,
gave her for her marriage. Hawise was later the wife of
the same Robert. Order to the sheriff of Lincolnshire to
cause Robert to have full seisin of the aforesaid land.
Witness H. de Burgh.' [Fine Rolls, Henry III, C 60/11]
http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_011.html
* John P. Ravilious
al...@mindspring.com
Hi John
Great posts today, as always!
As I recall Robert de Ferrers, 2nd Earl of Derby supposedly had a
younger brother Walcheline (i.e. Walkelin) de Ferrers of Okeham. I
do not know anything of his descendants but the possibility is
obvious.
Doug Smith
al...@mindspring.com
Sorry as you noted in your post, but more likely like the proposed
Chandos line
Which i think went.
Walcheline de Ferrers, father of
Walkelin de Ferrers of Radbourn
with two sons: William fitz Walkelin and Robert fitz Walkelin
With this Robert having three known sons, Robert, Henry and Peter
and know possibly a William.
based on the posts of Brice Clagett and Rosie Bevan. As you said the
chronology would work.
See also DD, p 967.
Red Book of the Exchequer pps 336-340 which mentions William filius
Walkelin and Robert filius Walkelin.
Doug Smith
Kay Allen
In one of the Morris bros.' works on Shropshire, there
is a Walcheline Ferrers of Oakham, co. Rutland that
had a son William. This Walcheline
is grandson of Henry de Ferrers.
Hope this helps.
K
=== message truncated ===
Merilyn Pedrick
Is this the Walcherine de Ferrers whose wife was Alice Leche? I have him as
son of Henry and father of Isabel (Millicent) de Ferrers who married Roger
de Mortimer, making her a sister of the William you mention. Same family?
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
-------Original Message-------
From: Kay Allen
Date: 06/12/07 10:32:12
To: John P. Ravilious; gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Savage of Stainsby, and Avenel of Eskdale: a Ferrers descent ?
Dear John,
Hope this helps.
K
> Monday, 11 June, 2007
>
>
>
> potential,
> ancestry of
>
> Eskdale, and
> William
> the
> Comyn
> near
> &c.
> his
> 2nd
> of
> Dalkeith.
>
>
> lord of Eskdale I
> ________I___________
> I I
> Sibyl
> Scots I I
> _____I
> _________________________I_________
> I I I I
> I
> Isabel Gervase Roger Robert
> William
> de Brus (dsp) Eskdale
> I de Ros I
> __I______________ I
> I I I
> Graham
> Dalkeith
> 1283/4
> I I I
> V V V
>
>
> Avenel
> On 13
> their
> Calendar
> Saier de
> there were
>
>
> concerning
> William son
> Avenel;.." [2]
>
> concerning
> the
> the
> relationship
> kinship,
> his
> William
> fitz Walkelin.
>
> kinsman
> held
> obtained from
> his
> 4 April
> deceased
> in
> Lincolnshire [4].
>
> the
> of
> Sibyl
> but
> particular
> had
> whom
> brother
> ancestor of
> The
> of this
> (although
> possibly a
> brother
> nephew
> Avenel
> in June 1213.
>
> fitz
> Sibyl,
> the
> William
> thoughts or
> above
>
> Cheers,
>
> John *
>
>
> NOTES
>
> Scotland
> 15
>
> hostages.
> son, and
> K. of
> so that
> of St.
> John Baptist instant. Beaulieu. '
>
>
> [2] Ibid.
>
=== message truncated ===
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Kay Allen
the family to which I referred.
K
=== message truncated ===
Alex Maxwell Findlater
I presume that Sir Robert de Ros of Wark was the father of the Robert
de Ros who in march 1295 defected from the English for love of a Scots
lass and later held Sanquhar, which is not so far from the other
Graham holdings, being at the northern end of Nithsdale. Is this
right?
Rosie Bevan
Walchelin's wife. There is some charter evidence that Robert fiz
Walkelin had a brother named William. It comes from a grant and
confirmation given at Tutbury by Robert de Bakepuiz to John his
brother, of a gift made by their father to the latter, for which John
became a man in the court of his lord, Earl William de Ferrers. The
charter was witnessed by (amongst others) Earl Ferrers, Robert de
Ferrers brother of the earl, Robert and Henry de Ferrers uncles of the
earl, Robert fitz Walchelin, Henry fitz Walchelin, Peter his brother,
and William his brother ("Henrico fil.Walchelini, Petro fratre suo,
Willelmo fratre suo"). [Jeyes, Derbyshire Charters, p.32]. If Henry
fitz Walchelin was brother of Robert fitz Walchelin, then William was
their brother.
William fitz Walchelin died in 1214 when his widow Aline proffered 30
marks and a palfrey for her dower, and not to be destrained to marry
[Pipe R. 16 John, p.160]. At the same time Robert Salvage proffered
100 pounds and 1 palfrey to have the lands in "Steinbi et Ruchehorn"
with their pertinences, which used to belong to William fitz
Walchelin, and that the children of Robert by William's daughter would
continue to inherit [Ibid, p.165]
Walchelin (possibly Walchelin of Derby who had a wife named Goda) also
appears to have had two daughters, Hawise and Letitia, who made a fine
over a messuage in Derby in 1202 [ibid, p. 348] Walchelin also had
another son, named Nicholas, who married Avice daughter of Robert de
Beaufei. Robert gave the couple land in Dalbury which Robert fitz
Walchelin used to hold of him. Henry fitz Walchelin was one of the
witnesses to the charter of gift [Jeayes, p. 115].
Cheers
Rosie
John P. Ravilious
Dear Rosie, Kay, Merilyn, Doug, et al.,
Many thanks for your replies, and suggestions.
The Walkelin (de Ferrers) I had in mind was the younger son
of Robert, Earl of Derby and Margaret Peverel, as shown in the
chart below. Walkelin de Ferrieres (or Ferrers) of
Oakham, Rutland, & c. was the son of Henry, son of William de
Ferrieres of Oakham, shown in the chart below (actually the elder
son of Henry de Ferrieres and Bertha). The line of Walkelin of
Oakham daughtered out in 1204 (his son Hugh dsp before 15 Aug
1204), with a daughter Isabel (wife of Roger de Mortimer, and
mother by him of Ralph de Mortimer, future husband of Gwladys
Ddu).
Rosie, I think you are correct in your reading the charter
(of William de Ferrers, E of Derby, d. 22 Sept 1247). I have
seen Henry and Peter given previously as brothers of Robert fitz
Walkelin de Ferrers; adding William, esp. as a younger brother,
would make sense. Further, the name Letitia was already present
in the family as shown below.
Henry de Ferrieres = Bertha
of Oakham & c. I
___________________________I________________________
I I
Robert de Ferrieres (Ferrers) = Hawise William
E of Derby; d. 1139 I de Vitre de Ferrieres
I of Oakham
___________________________I__________________ I
I I I V
Robert NN = Ralph Letitia
E of Derby I Paynel aunt of Earl William
= Margaret I held half the manor
Peverel I of Passenham, ca.
I I 1162x190 (granted by
____I_________ _I_________ her nephew William *
I I I I to Henry 'son of Robert'
I I I I son of Walchelin)
William Walkelin Gervase Hawise [National Archives,
E of 'of Derby'? Paynel = Ralph DL 27/219]
Derby * I (dsp) de Somery
d 1190 I
= Sibyl de I
Braose ______I___________________________________________
I I I ? I I
Robert Henry Peter William Hawise Letitia
fitz fitz fitz fitz fl.1202 fl. 1202
Walkelin W. W. Walkelin
(of Egginton) of Stainsby
I = Aline
V I
I
Hawise = Robert
Savage
The National Archives document [DL 27/219] gives the recipient
as "Henry son of Robertson [sic] son of Walkelin", which does not
inspire great confidence - I don't believe Letitia granted these
lands to a great-nephew, although not impossible. "Henry son of
Walkelin" may have been intended, but this is not quite certain.
There could of course be another 'Robert son of Walkelin' who is
otherwise unknown.
I agree, the possibility of a non-blood relationship between
William fitz Walkelin and Gervase Avenel exists. Weak indications
come from the importation of the names Sibyl (mother and wife of
Gervase Avenel - not the same person of course) and Gervase into
the Avenel family at this point. I have not seen the name
Gervase in the Ferrers family itself, although it is found in the
Paynel cousin of William de Ferrers, E of Derby (d. 1190) as
shown above.
Cheers,
John
> > the same Robert. Order to the- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more
al...@mindspring.com
"The pedigree given in an article on the Manor of Eggington
[F.N.Fisher, 'Eggington Court Rolls 1306/7 - 1311/12', Journal of the
Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, v. LXXXV,
pp.36-61] shows the following
1.Walchelin of Radbourne 1086, fl 1125
2.William
2.Robert f. Walchelin d.c. 1160
3.Robert f. Robert f. Walchelin d.1232
+ Margaret, da.of William de Grendon d.1203, and Ermentrude
widow of Quintin Talbot
4.Ermentrude
+ William de Stafford fl 1286
4.Margaret
+ John de Chandos"
It would appear that there are multiple Walkelins and William fitz
Walkelins, etc. It is not clear (at least to me) that the William you
are discussing could not have descended from this line.
Doug Smith
jasonkris...@gmail.com
1. fitz Walchelin line.
That the fitz Walchelin line is in any way related to the Ferrers seems to be based totally on given name usage. Yes, they were prominent under tenants, of the Ferrers, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were anything more than that.
In an 1141 charter of Robert II de Ferrers, Robert fitz Walchelin is specifically stated to be "Robertus filius Walkelini de Roburna". Monasticon Anglicanum: Tutbury NUM VII https://books.google.ca/books?id=r71LN35ZEG4C&pg=PA393&lpg=PA393&dq
"Walchelinus de Raborna" was a teste to a charter under Robert I de Ferrers (1100-1139). Monasticon Anglicanum: Tutbury NUM XI https://books.google.ca/books?id=r71LN35ZEG4C&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq
In the Red book of the Exchequer, at the time of Henry I, a Robert and a William, both said to be sons of Walchelin, are listed, and Robert's property is said, in 1166, to be held by his son, also named Robert. William's property was apparently held by Geoffrey Marmion in 1166.
At around that time (1166-1190) there is also a deed to a Henry son of Robert son of Walchelin. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5414382
The 1166 Robert is often described as the one who marries Margaret de Grendon, daughter of Ermentrude, through which more Egginton property comes his way, and whose daughters inherit in 1238/9. But, this doesn't make sense. This Robert is already an adult, by 1166. He'd have to be born before 1145. That would have him living until he's about 90, and not having his daughters until he's in his 70s. Ermentrude is often also made out to be marrying a Ferrers, or to be a Ferrers herself, which is nonsense.
A Built Heritage Statement seems to make more sense, which includes a Robert III fitz Walchelin whose daughters inherit. http://planning.south-derbys.gov.uk/documents/pa/2015/9_2015_0768%20Heritage%20Statement%20(ADDITIONAL%20v2).pdf
This also makes more sense, based on the dates for William de Grendon, Quintin Talbot, and Henry fitz Gerald, said to be 3 husbands of Ermentrude. Daughter Margaret de Grendon appears to be born around 1200-1202, married off and having children by the age of 15 or 16 (mother Ermentrude appears to have first married young, as well, and still having children with 3rd husband fitz Gerald at around the same time Margaret is getting married), and likewise for Margaret's own daughters. One of those daughters is also named Ermentrude, which is where the conflation with her grandmother and, in turn, conflation with the fitz Walchelins being Ferrers, comes into play. Margaret's Ermentrude, however, is not a Ferrers, and marries William de Stafford.
Another possibility for a Robert III is in a reference to a Robert son of Henry son of Walchelin. Maybe a Robert, son of Henry, inherited from his uncle, Robert II.
As for William fitz Walchelin, his daughter Hawise appears to be coming of age, about 1199, and he dies about 1213. He could possibly be a younger brother of the Robert and Henry generation. If he comes of age about 1171, and is born about 1150, then he'd still only be about 34, if Hawise is born about 1184. Whatever the case, there's nothing to indicate the fitz Walchelin line is actually related to the Ferrers.
This line may descend from the Ascelin in Egginton, in 1086, sometimes spelled Wascelin.
2. Ferrers of Rutland/Oakham.
The descent of this line comes from a William de Ferrers (1060-1131). Most accounts have him as the son of Henry, who came with the conqueror. This is problematic. Some accounts say Robert I inherits because his older brothers Engenulf and William died before their father, Henry, did. On a similar note, some accounts say Engenulf and William are the same person, and he died before his father, Henry. The problem with these theories are that the Rutland William had heirs, 3 sons, yet none of the property ever held by Henry seems to be held by this line. Engenulf is said to have been given Duffield, by his father, but that property ends up in Robert I's hands, as well, apparently skipping an older brother William, if he existed, and his heirs.
On the flip side, neither Henry, nor Robert I appear to hold any of the family's ancestral property, back in Normandy. William, however, does. And, when Normandy splits with England, it is William's line that keeps their Normandy property as their main inheritance, joins France, and leaves Oakham to a younger brother, who dies, leaving it to a sister. It is William who is travelling about Normandy with Robert, duke of Normandy, and off on the first Crusade with him.
In 1086, Oakham is held directly by the king, and in 1166 this line is a direct tenant to the king in Oakham. It is not part of the greater Ferrers holdings, belonging to the Derby Ferrers.
Everything seems to add up to the conclusion made by Auguste Le Prevost, that William was the son of Henry's older brother, also named William. The Conqueror's army was packed with younger sons wanting to make a name for themselves. Henry appears to be one of them, while his older brother, and his descendants, inherited the ancestral lands, back in Normandy.
So, if Robert I, of the Derby line, did have a brother, William, he may have died before Henry, but nothing would suggest he's the same William at the top of the Oakham and Normandy line.
This line is also sometimes conflated with the Derby line through William I de Ferrers, 3rd earl of Derby, and Walchelin de Ferrers, of Normandy and Oakham, both of whom go on the 3rd Crusade. The earl dies at the Siege of Acre, but Walchelin survives, and is found on later charters in Normandy. Some accounts seem to make them the same person, or add a Walchelin brother of William in this generation.
3. Walchelin and wife Goda.
This couple seems to have been forced into the Ferrers and Toeni families again based purely on their first names. Walchelin de Derby was a moneyer/minter, during the Anarchy, who leaves his property to become a school, and lists all kinds of people he purchased land from, rather than inheriting from any of the Ferrers of Derby.
Educational Charters and Documents 598 to 1909, p 111-112 https://books.google.ca/books?id=YlQHi9LKefEC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq
The Schools of Medieval England, p 125 https://books.google.ca/books?id=Z4EmWXn2aCMC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq
Peter Stewart
On 11/05/2017 1:36 AM, jasonkris...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know this is drudging up an old post, but I've been trying to sort out the Ferrers family recently. The older genealogies (Burkes, etc.) have numerous errors, conflating different branches of the Ferrers family, and those that don't even seem to be Ferrers.
> 2. Ferrers of Rutland/Oakham.
>
> The descent of this line comes from a William de Ferrers (1060-1131). Most accounts have him as the son of Henry, who came with the conqueror. This is problematic. Some accounts say Robert I inherits because his older brothers Engenulf and William died before their father, Henry, did. On a similar note, some accounts say Engenulf and William are the same person, and he died before his father, Henry. The problem with these theories are that the Rutland William had heirs, 3 sons, yet none of the property ever held by Henry seems to be held by this line. Engenulf is said to have been given Duffield, by his father, but that property ends up in Robert I's hands, as well, apparently skipping an older brother William, if he existed, and his heirs.
>
> On the flip side, neither Henry, nor Robert I appear to hold any of the family's ancestral property, back in Normandy. William, however, does. And, when Normandy splits with England, it is William's line that keeps their Normandy property as their main inheritance, joins France, and leaves Oakham to a younger brother, who dies, leaving it to a sister. It is William who is travelling about Normandy with Robert, duke of Normandy, and off on the first Crusade with him.
>
> In 1086, Oakham is held directly by the king, and in 1166 this line is a direct tenant to the king in Oakham. It is not part of the greater Ferrers holdings, belonging to the Derby Ferrers.
>
> Everything seems to add up to the conclusion made by Auguste Le Prevost, that William was the son of Henry's older brother, also named William. The Conqueror's army was packed with younger sons wanting to make a name for themselves. Henry appears to be one of them, while his older brother, and his descendants, inherited the ancestral lands, back in Normandy.
>
> So, if Robert I, of the Derby line, did have a brother, William, he may have died before Henry, but nothing would suggest he's the same William at the top of the Oakham and Normandy line.
named William, and that their father Henry was the seigneur of
Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire in Normandy rather than the younger brother of a
seigneur named William with heirs of his own.
Henri's three sons are named in the foundation charter of Turbury
priory, written 1087/1100 in the reign of William Rufus ("ego Henricus
de Ferrariis fundavi ecclesiam in honore sancte dei genetricis Marie
apud castellum meum Tuttesbur’ pro anima W. regis et Matildis regine et
pro salute anime patris mei et matris mee et uxoris mee Berte et
filiorum meorum Eugenulphi [sic], W., Roberti ac filiarum mearum ...
Hanc autem ecclesiam et quicquid huic ecclesie vel jam prebui vel
deinceps prebere voluero per concessionem et auctoritatem W. junioris
regis Anglorum dono ecclesie mee Tuttesbur’ et monachis meis ibidem deo
servientibus sicut constitutum est apud Melbergam ante prefatum regem
Willelmum.") Although the comma after Engenulf's name is presumably an
editorial addition, I see no reason to think that this was one son with
two names. "W." stood for the name William with both kings named, so why
would Henri's son Robert not have a second brother named William?
And if the William who became seigneur of Ferrières was an elder brother
of Henri, why would the latter assume the conventional style of a
seigneur in subscribing a charter of William the Conqueror in April 1067
("Signum Henrici de Ferreris"), as also in the foundation charter of
Tutbury quoted above? Younger brothers of seigneurs at this time were
more usually identified only as sons of their father, not with their own
territorial designation or surname. It was quite usual for Norman and
English lands to be divided between different sons of seigneurs in the
generation after the Conquest, with the eldest normally sticking to the
Norman inheritance that was considered more secure.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> 2. Ferrers of Rutland/Oakham.
>
> The descent of this line comes from a William de Ferrers (1060-1131).
As far as I know, there is no record of his birth in 1060 or of his death in 1131 - the latter is actually counter to evidence, because his son Henri occurs several times holding the family's lands in England in the pipe roll compiled at Michaelmas 1130. (This used to be ascribed to 1131 and so the terminus ante quem for William's death was derived from that by 19th/early-20th century historians.)
Henri's appearance in the pipe roll for 31 Henry I doesn't necessarily mean that he had only recently inherited by Michaelmas 1130 - William his father last occurs in the record of a judgment delivered in 1111, I think, though I haven't made a thorough search for him afterwards. Stapleton, who first gave the generally-accepted genealogy of this branch, noted that William was living 1090-1106. Lewis Loyd in his study of the family repeated this, stating that William was "Living 1106. Dead 1131".
Peter Stewart