Discussion:
Eudo Dapifer and Rose fitz Richard de Clare
Add Reply
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-04-30 07:07:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

I am curious if there is any currently held consensus on whether Margaret (b. c. 1080/90 - ), wife of William I de Mandeville (d. before 1130), daughter of Eudo Dapifer (d. March 1, 1120, Colchester), Steward of William I, II and Henry I, is also the daughter of his wife Rose fitz Richard de Clare (d. January 7, 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy). I have seen a variety of positions taken including:

(1) There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo;
(2) Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose; and
(3) Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose.

In addition, is there a consensus or conclusive evidence that Geoffrey I de Mandeville (d. September 1144) is the son of the aforementioned Margaret?

I'd be grateful for any contemporary insight into this conundrum. Many thanks.

Cheers,

Pete
John Watson
2016-05-01 02:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings,
(1) There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo;
(2) Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose; and
(3) Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose.
In addition, is there a consensus or conclusive evidence that Geoffrey I de Mandeville (d. September 1144) is the son of the aforementioned Margaret?
I'd be grateful for any contemporary insight into this conundrum. Many thanks.
Cheers,
Pete
Hi Pete,

See K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants some Corrigenda, p. 1
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~prosop/domesday-descendants-corrigenda.pdf

which says that Margaret was daughter of Eudo Dapifer and Rohais de Clare.

Regards,
John
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-01 07:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi John,

Many thanks for the reply. I am familiar with what Keats-Rohan states regarding the parentage of Margaret, wife of William I de Mandeville. However, I continue to have difficulty reconciling it with, for example, the following:

[1] 'The Complete Peerage, (1926), Vol. V, edited by Gibbs & Doubleday, pp. 113-114:

"Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex."

[2] 'Notes and Queries', (Jan-Jun, 1880), 6th series, vol. I, pp. 6-7:

"This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter].

This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: -

"Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters.

[3] Lastly, I've heard the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the son of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

I'd be grateful for any insight or clarifications with respect to the contradictions above. Many thanks.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-01 08:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Hi John,
"Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex."
"This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter].
This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: -
"Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters.
Chester Waters was wrong, Geoffrey de Mandeville was recognised as heir
to Eudo's estates and the dapiferate in Normandy, and all his estates in
England - see the charter of Matilda, pp. 201-102 no. 275,
https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/100/mode/2up:

"Et do ei [comiti Gaufredo Essexe] totam terram quae fuit Eudonis
Dapiferi in Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius ... Et si dominus meus Comes
Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et
terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum quod habet totam
terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit
et vivus et mortuus".

In the same charter Matilda made a grant to Geoffrey's maternal
half-brother William fitz Otuel, "Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio
Otvel fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi c libratas terrae de terris
escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et haereditate
pro servicio sue et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi."

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-01 09:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart via
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Hi John,
"Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex."
"This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter].
This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: -
"Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters.
Chester Waters was wrong, Geoffrey de Mandeville was recognised as heir
to Eudo's estates and the dapiferate in Normandy, and all his estates in
England - see the charter of Matilda, pp. 201-102 no. 275,
"Et do ei [comiti Gaufredo Essexe] totam terram quae fuit Eudonis
Dapiferi in Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius ... Et si dominus meus Comes
Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et
terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum quod habet totam
terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit
et vivus et mortuus".
In the same charter Matilda made a grant to Geoffrey's maternal
half-brother William fitz Otuel, "Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio
Otvel fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi c libratas terrae de terris
escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et haereditate
pro servicio sue et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi."
I should have added that the "positive proof" Chester Waters relied on
is false - see p. 126 no. 1096*,
https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl02davi#page/126/mode/2up.

Peter Stewart
Patricia A. Junkin via
2016-05-01 16:41:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I am curious as to whether we are discussing the same Geoffrey de Mandeville.

“Adam de Talewrth (I) demised (chirograph) to G(eoffrey de Mandeville), son of Peter, Earl of Essex for 30 years from the coming of King Otho (King Otho the IV,1175-1218, to England) of the manor of Ditton: (Surrey) [Reign of John].”[1] (PRO) DL 25/1569

"Geoffrey Fitz Peter (s/o Piers de Lutegareshale and Maud de Mandeville), (c.1162 - 1213) who married first, Beatrice de Sai, daughter of William, de Say and 2) Aveline, daughter of Roger de Clare. Maud de Mandeville was the grand daughter of Adelize de Clare. "Ditton, Long (St. Mary) the manors of Ditton and Talworth are noticed in the Domesday survey under the appellations of Ditone and Taleorde; and in the reign of John, some property here appears to have been given by Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, to the convent of St. Mary without Bishopsgate, London"

Thank you for your response.
Pat
Post by Peter Stewart via
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Hi John,
"Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex."
"This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter].
This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: -
"Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters.
Chester Waters was wrong, Geoffrey de Mandeville was recognised as heir
to Eudo's estates and the dapiferate in Normandy, and all his estates in
England - see the charter of Matilda, pp. 201-102 no. 275,
"Et do ei [comiti Gaufredo Essexe] totam terram quae fuit Eudonis
Dapiferi in Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius ... Et si dominus meus Comes
Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et
terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum quod habet totam
terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit
et vivus et mortuus".
In the same charter Matilda made a grant to Geoffrey's maternal
half-brother William fitz Otuel, "Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio
Otvel fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi c libratas terrae de terris
escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et haereditate
pro servicio sue et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi."
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
taf
2016-05-01 17:59:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Patricia A. Junkin via
I am curious as to whether we are discussing the same Geoffrey de Mandeville.
No, you aren't. But wait, there's more.
Post by Patricia A. Junkin via
"Adam de Talewrth (I) demised (chirograph) to G(eoffrey de
Mandeville), son of Peter, Earl of Essex for 30 years from the coming
of King Otho (King Otho the IV,1175-1218, to England) of the manor of
Ditton: (Surrey) [Reign of John]."[1] (PRO) DL 25/1569
This is Geoffrey FitzPiers, who was a favorite of the king, given the marriage to Beatrice de Say, a grand-niece of the Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville being discussed. He was then made Earl of Essex, entailed to his children by her (even though Beatrice was only coheiress). These children took the Mandeville surname, but I don't think Geoffrey ever used that surname (although it is frequently assigned to him, in part because of the misconception below).
Post by Patricia A. Junkin via
"Geoffrey Fitz Peter (s/o Piers de Lutegareshale and Maud de Mandeville),
(c.1162 - 1213) who married first, Beatrice de Sai, daughter of William,
de Say and 2) Aveline, daughter of Roger de Clare. Maud de Mandeville
was the grand daughter of Adelize de Clare.
This is an extremely unfortunate but longstanding error that continues to be perpetuated. Piers de Lutegareshale married a woman named Maud, also married Hugh de Boclande (I don't recall off hand which came first). Nothing is known about her parentage, in spite of the frequent claim she was a Mandeville.

In the Essex article of New Complete Peerage, a table was produced to show the descent of the title, and because Geoffrey FitzPiers and his maternal half-brother William de Boclande, married the Say coheiresses to Mandeville, Piers de Ludegarshale, Maud (no surname given) and Hugh de Boclande were placed within the table, and arbitrarily arranged in an open space under the horizontal line connecting Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville's children. No vertical line linked Maud to the horizontal line, but its absence was ignored or overlooked and many took this as asserting that Maud was another of Earl Geoffrey's children. Books like Ancestral Roots explicitly cited that specific chart for the information, yet the chart doesn't say what it is claimed to say.

taf
Patricia Junkin via
2016-05-01 19:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare?
Pat
Sent from my iPhone
Post by taf
Post by Patricia A. Junkin via
I am curious as to whether we are discussing the same Geoffrey de Mandeville.
No, you aren't. But wait, there's more.
Post by Patricia A. Junkin via
"Adam de Talewrth (I) demised (chirograph) to G(eoffrey de
Mandeville), son of Peter, Earl of Essex for 30 years from the coming
of King Otho (King Otho the IV,1175-1218, to England) of the manor of
Ditton: (Surrey) [Reign of John]."[1] (PRO) DL 25/1569
This is Geoffrey FitzPiers, who was a favorite of the king, given the marriage to Beatrice de Say, a grand-niece of the Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville being discussed. He was then made Earl of Essex, entailed to his children by her (even though Beatrice was only coheiress). These children took the Mandeville surname, but I don't think Geoffrey ever used that surname (although it is frequently assigned to him, in part because of the misconception below).
Post by Patricia A. Junkin via
"Geoffrey Fitz Peter (s/o Piers de Lutegareshale and Maud de Mandeville),
(c.1162 - 1213) who married first, Beatrice de Sai, daughter of William,
de Say and 2) Aveline, daughter of Roger de Clare. Maud de Mandeville
was the grand daughter of Adelize de Clare.
This is an extremely unfortunate but longstanding error that continues to be perpetuated. Piers de Lutegareshale married a woman named Maud, also married Hugh de Boclande (I don't recall off hand which came first). Nothing is known about her parentage, in spite of the frequent claim she was a Mandeville.
In the Essex article of New Complete Peerage, a table was produced to show the descent of the title, and because Geoffrey FitzPiers and his maternal half-brother William de Boclande, married the Say coheiresses to Mandeville, Piers de Ludegarshale, Maud (no surname given) and Hugh de Boclande were placed within the table, and arbitrarily arranged in an open space under the horizontal line connecting Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville's children. No vertical line linked Maud to the horizontal line, but its absence was ignored or overlooked and many took this as asserting that Maud was another of Earl Geoffrey's children. Books like Ancestral Roots explicitly cited that specific chart for the information, yet the chart doesn't say what it is claimed to say.
taf
-------------------------------
a***@mindspring.com
2016-05-01 19:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
As I understand it Maud _____ was the mother of Earl Geoffrey and William de Boclande. She was not a Mandeville. I have seen speculation that she was a niece of Henri de Blois, Bishop of Winchester, based on her having his chapel after his death.

Doug Smith
taf
2016-05-01 19:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Patricia Junkin via
Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the
father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct
that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare?
No. Peter/Piers de Litegarshale and his wife Maud are the parents of Geoffrey FitsPiers, Earl of Essex, it's just that Maud is of unknown parentage. This Geoffrey FitzPiers was married Beatrice de Say, coheiress of her great-uncle Geoffrey de Mandeville, the previous Earl. On her death, he remarried to Aveline de Clare. He never took the name de Mandeville, but his sons by Beatrice used it. Geoffrey FitzPiers also had children by Avelina who never took the Mandeville name, nor did they have claim to Essex (which passed via Beatrice's daughter to Bohun, rather than to Aveline's son).

taf
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-01 21:02:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al,

Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions?

[1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo

[Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?]

[2] Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose

[Position taken - I have discovered no positive evidence, and no evidence has been made available to me, to establish that Margaret was the daughter of Rose de Clare. However, I have not identified any evidence that she is not. The reference to the "movent clause" by Chester Waters does not seem particularly meaningful to me as I have seen a number of said clauses which were silent on known living children. Unless Margaret was deceased at the date of the charter, such absence does not seem meaningful. Does anyone else have any knowledge of why Rose cannot be, or is not likely to, be Margaret's mother?]

[3] Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose

[Position taken - this is not an unreasonable position to take in that Margaret was the dau. of Eudo Dapifer (inferred in #1 above) and Rose de Clare was Eudo's only known wife. However, conclusive evidence that Rose is Margaret's mother is lacking.]

Query:

My other comment in my initial post was incorrect, I mean to say, I've read the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife Rose de Vere would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. In particular, that Geoffrey de Mandeville and Rose de Vere would be related in the 3rd degree by common descent from Richard de Brionne and Rose de Giffard under Hollister's pedigree chart, for example.

I would appreciate any insight on the items above. Thank you.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-01 23:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al,
Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions?
[1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo
[Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?]
It is a particularly strong - I would say conclusive - inference from
Matilda's charter that Geoffrey's mother was the daughter and heiress of
Eudo - note that the empress stated "Et haec reddo ei ut rectum suum ut
habeat et teneat haereditabiliter" regarding the Norman estates and
dapiferate, and "quia hoc est rectum suum" regarding the English
inheritance.
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
[2] Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose
[Position taken - I have discovered no positive evidence, and no evidence has been made available to me, to establish that Margaret was the daughter of Rose de Clare. However, I have not identified any evidence that she is not. The reference to the "movent clause" by Chester Waters does not seem particularly meaningful to me as I have seen a number of said clauses which were silent on known living children. Unless Margaret was deceased at the date of the charter, such absence does not seem meaningful. Does anyone else have any knowledge of why Rose cannot be, or is not likely to, be Margaret's mother?]
[3] Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose
[Position taken - this is not an unreasonable position to take in that Margaret was the dau. of Eudo Dapifer (inferred in #1 above) and Rose de Clare was Eudo's only known wife. However, conclusive evidence that Rose is Margaret's mother is lacking.]
You would be hard-pressed to find an explicit source for the maternity
of almost any woman in this era - even with the daughters of kings we
often assume that the only known wife was the mother. Granted we are
more likely to know of kings' marriages than those of dapifers, but
nonetheless Occam's razor applies.
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
My other comment in my initial post was incorrect, I mean to say, I've read the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife Rose de Vere would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. In particular, that Geoffrey de Mandeville and Rose de Vere would be related in the 3rd degree by common descent from Richard de Brionne and Rose de Giffard under Hollister's pedigree chart, for example.
Are you suggesting that this consanguinity was too close to be
dispensed, or just that a record of dispensation is lacking?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-01 23:34:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart via
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al,
Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions?
[1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo
[Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?]
It is a particularly strong - I would say conclusive - inference from
Matilda's charter that Geoffrey's mother was the daughter and heiress of
Eudo - note that the empress stated "Et haec reddo ei ut rectum suum ut
habeat et teneat haereditabiliter" regarding the Norman estates and
dapiferate, and "quia hoc est rectum suum" regarding the English
inheritance.
I should have added that Round disagreed with this - he noted "The
clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship existed, but it
was probably collateral, instead of lineal."

The only source we have (albeit less than fully reliable) makes the
relationship direct through Eudo's daughter Margaret. Round's
probability contradicting this was based on the estates of Eudo
escheating to the Crown at his death - but why this would happen despite
a collateral rather than direct heir having rights to the inheritance he
did not discuss. Henry I was not the most scrupulous legalist of the
age. Evidently Geoffrey's mother was already dead, or at least not able
to carry this great power to her second husband Otuel.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-02 02:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart via
Post by Peter Stewart via
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al,
Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions?
[1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo
[Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?]
It is a particularly strong - I would say conclusive - inference from
Matilda's charter that Geoffrey's mother was the daughter and heiress of
Eudo - note that the empress stated "Et haec reddo ei ut rectum suum ut
habeat et teneat haereditabiliter" regarding the Norman estates and
dapiferate, and "quia hoc est rectum suum" regarding the English
inheritance.
I should have added that Round disagreed with this - he noted "The
clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship existed, but it
was probably collateral, instead of lineal."
The only source we have (albeit less than fully reliable) makes the
relationship direct through Eudo's daughter Margaret. Round's
probability contradicting this was based on the estates of Eudo
escheating to the Crown at his death - but why this would happen despite
a collateral rather than direct heir having rights to the inheritance he
did not discuss. Henry I was not the most scrupulous legalist of the
age. Evidently Geoffrey's mother was already dead, or at least not able
to carry this great power to her second husband Otuel.
It was not as simple as my last sentence above. The matter was discussed
at length by Warren Hollister in 'The misfortunes of the Mandevilles',
*History* 58 (1973), reprinted in his collected essays *Monarchy,
Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World* (1986) - regarding
the descent of Geoffrey from Eudo through Margaret, Hollister concluded
(in note 31) "The passage [in Tintern abbey's Genealogia fundatoris:
'Rohesia ... renupta Eudoni, dapifero ... Margareta filia eorum nupta
fuit Willielmo de Mandevill, et fuit mater Gaufridi comitis Essexiae et
jure matris, Normanniae dapifer'] was known to Round but rejected by him
(and by the editors of *Complete Peerage*, V, 114) on the grounds that
Eudo's lands did not pass directly to Geoffrey de Mandeville but were in
Henry I's hands in 1130. This can hardly stand as an objection when one
recalls that three former Mandeville manors were also in royal hands,
and that Geoffrey's rights were in conflict with those of [his maternal
half-brother] William fitz Othuer."

Eudo died in Normandy in February 1120, allegedly after being blind for
the past 15 years, and Otuel drowned in the White Ship disaster on 25
November of the same year. The history of Mandeville holdings as well as
those of Eudo is too complicated to detail here, but it is worth reading
Hollister's article as a corrective to Round and CP over this.

Peter Stewart
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-02 04:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Peter,

Many thanks for the informed & thoughtful reply. I respond as follows:

[1]. As per consanguinity, I am not familiar enough with the subject, save for the basic and changing prohibitions, to know whether a relationship in the 3rd degree was likely to be ignored or readily accommodated with dispensation or, alternatively, whether the granting of a technically required dispensation was to be expected in a case like this but simply absent from the surviving record. I, generally, am loathe to rely on missing evidence to satisfy genealogical challenges. However, as I said earlier, I simply do not know enough about this topic to make any determinations.

[2]. I just re-read the Hollister article on the Mandeville family you kindly quoted. Are you in agreement with his conclusions? The arguments, while I understand the logic and import, are too advanced for me to really hazard a guess as per who is correct - Round v Hollister.

Again, I'm grateful for you & others taking the time to review & opine on my comments & queries.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-02 05:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Hi Peter,
[1]. As per consanguinity, I am not familiar enough with the subject, save for the basic and changing prohibitions, to know whether a relationship in the 3rd degree was likely to be ignored or readily accommodated with dispensation or, alternatively, whether the granting of a technically required dispensation was to be expected in a case like this but simply absent from the surviving record. I, generally, am loathe to rely on missing evidence to satisfy genealogical challenges. However, as I said earlier, I simply do not know enough about this topic to make any determinations.
[2]. I just re-read the Hollister article on the Mandeville family you kindly quoted. Are you in agreement with his conclusions? The arguments, while I understand the logic and import, are too advanced for me to really hazard a guess as per who is correct - Round v Hollister.
For what it's worth, I think Hollister has the better of this argument -
Round evidently supposed that inheritance was secure at the time of
Eudo's death, but careful work has been done of this question since he
wrote and the answer is "not so much". It has calculated that
inheritance within families occurred within the frequency range of
60-80% through the reign of Henry I. We know that William de Mandeville
had fallen from favour, and his father-in-law Eudo may have been
incapacitated in the last two decades of his life. I wouldn't think it
surprising if William's underage son Geoffrey fell into the unlucky
20-40% until Matilda decided to give him all she could of his rights -
that is, lands and the dapiferate in Normandy that were under her (or
officially her husband's) control, and the estates in England if
Geoffrey could obtain them.

Peter Stewart
p***@peterdale.com
2016-05-02 05:54:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Peter,

Many thanks. I need to take some time to review & process the information kindly provided in this thread by you & others. One last follow-up, if you may indulge me. Do you have any further thoughts regarding the consanguinity issue?

Cheers,

Pete
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-02 06:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Hi Peter,
Many thanks. I need to take some time to review & process the information kindly provided in this thread by you & others. One last follow-up, if you may indulge me. Do you have any further thoughts regarding the consanguinity issue?
Apologies, I was distracted from responding to this part of your earlier
post.

I think there is more room to doubt that Margaret was the daughter of
Rohais de Clare than that her father was Eudo - one of the two sources
stating the family of his wife, the history of the foundation of
Colchester abbey, was written after 1533 in an imitation 12th-century
script.

According to the other source, the annals of the abbey, Eudo's
brother-in-law Gilbert de Clare laid the third stone of the abbey in
1096 (however this may be a 14th century interpolation). Gilbert
certainly did have a sister named Rohais, but as far as I know we don't
have a contemporary source making her the wife of Eudo.

As for consanguinity if Margaret's mother was Rohais de Clare, off the
top of my head I can't think of any instances where Anglo-Normans got
away with second-cousin marriages in the 12th century, dispensation or
no, though perhaps someone else can.

Peter Stewart
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-02 18:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Many thanks again Peter.

I set out below an extract from the website, 'Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands - A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, Untitled English Nobility P-S', which provides certain information on the identify of Eudo's wife Rose.

Does this assist in clarifying her identify?

"... m ROHESE, daughter of RICHARD FitzGilbert de Brionne & his wife Rohese Giffard (-7 Jan 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy[747] [Domesday Descendants, p. 400.]). "Eudo dapifer domini regis" founded Colchester St John, for the souls of King Henry I, Queen Matilda "...uxore mea Roaysia", by undated charter[748] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 1.]. Her parentage is confirmed by the undated charter under which "Rohais uxor Eudonis dapiferi" donated "manerium de Halingberi sicut dominus meus Eudo die qua vivus et mortuus fuit illud habebat" and land which "Gelebertus frater meus" gave her, for the souls of "Eudonis dapiferi mariti mei et Gilberti fratris mei"[749] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 48. ], which is corroborated by the undated charter under which "Walterus filius Roberti" donated "terram de teia" to Colchester St. John, for the souls of "patris mei Roberti filii Ricardi et matris mee Matildis et...Rohaise amite mee que ecclesiam Sancti Johannis fundavit et fratrum suorum", to Colchester St. John[750] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 165.]. The History of the foundation of St John's abbey, Colchester also names "Eudoni...major domus regiæ" and "Roasya uxor eius...Gilbertum comes, Rohaisæ frater"[751] [Dugdale Monasticon IV, Colchester St John Abbey, Essex, I, Historia Fundationis, p. 607.]. Other sources suggest a different parentage for Rohese. According to Guillaume de Jumièges and the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, she was Rohese, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Brionne, daughter of Gauthier Giffard & his wife Ermengarde (-after 1113, bur [Colchester]). Guillaume de Jumièges names "Galterium Giffardum primum" as father of "secundum Galterium Giffardum et filias plures" of whom "una...Rohais" married "Richardo filio comitis Gisleberti"[752] [Willelmi Gemmetensis monachi Historiæ Normannorum, Du Chesne, A. (1619) Historiæ Normannorum Scriptores Antiqui (Paris) ("Willelmi Gemmetencis Historiæ (Du Chesne, 1619)"), Liber VIII, XXXVII, p. 312.]. According to the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire, "Rohesia" married secondly "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" after the death of "Ricardo filio comitis Gisleberti" and that they were both buried "tempore Henrici primi" in "castrum Clecestriæ...coenobio in honore sancti Johannis" which Eudo constructed[753] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. The Complete Peerage says that this parentage is "probably erroneous"[754] [CP V 113-4.]. From a chronological point of view, the connection would be tight, assuming that the death date of Richard FitzGilbert is correctly estimated to [1090] and the birth of Rohese's granddaughter by her alleged second marriage, Beatrix, is correctly assessed at [1105]. This supposed different parentage is disproved by the three sources quoted above. Eudes & his wife had [one possible child]:

i) MARGUERITE ([1080/90]-). The Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Margareta" as daughter of "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" and "Rohesia", adding that she married "Willielmo de Mandavill" by whom she was mother of "Gaufridi filii comitis Essexiæ et iure matris Normanniæ dapifer"[755] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. According to the Complete Peerage, this genealogy is "probably erroneous" but it does not explain the basis for the doubts[756] [CP V 113-4.]. Marguerite's second marriage is suggested by the charter dated [1141/42] under which Empress Matilda made various grants of property including a grant to "Willelmo filio Otuel fratri...Comitis Gaufredi"[757] [Round (1892), p. 169.]. The only Ottiwell has been identified was the illegitimate son of Hugh Earl of Chester. m firstly ([1100/05]) WILLIAM de Mandeville, son of GEOFFREY de Mandeville & his first wife Adelisia --- (-[1116]). m secondly ([1116/19]) OTTIWELL, [maybe OTTIWELL FitzHugh, illegitimate son of HUGH Earl of Chester & his mistress ---] (-drowned off Barfleur, Normandy 25 Nov 1120)."
(source: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3P-S.htm#_ftnref747)

As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment. However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife. For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo.

Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is this a reasonable conclusion?

Cheers,

Pete
Randy Jones via
2016-05-02 23:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Near Liz & Dan's, where Barbara meets Jennifer.  A 2-mile interpretive loop along a crep.  Very pretty.


From: Peter G. M. Dale via <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Eudo Dapifer and Rose fitz Richard de Clare

Many thanks again Peter.

I set out below an extract from the website, 'Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands - A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, Untitled English Nobility P-S', which provides certain information on the identify of Eudo's wife Rose.

Does this assist in clarifying her identify?

"... m ROHESE, daughter of RICHARD FitzGilbert de Brionne & his wife Rohese Giffard (-7 Jan 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy[747] [Domesday Descendants, p. 400.]).  "Eudo dapifer domini regis" founded Colchester St John, for the souls of King Henry I, Queen Matilda "...uxore mea Roaysia", by undated charter[748] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 1.].  Her parentage is confirmed by the undated charter under which "Rohais uxor Eudonis dapiferi" donated "manerium de Halingberi sicut dominus meus Eudo die qua vivus et mortuus fuit illud habebat" and land which "Gelebertus frater meus" gave her, for the souls of "Eudonis dapiferi mariti mei et Gilberti fratris mei"[749] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 48. ], which is corroborated by the undated charter under which  "Walterus filius Roberti" donated "terram de teia" to Colchester St. John, for the souls of "patris mei Roberti filii Ricardi et matris mee Matildis et...Rohaise amite mee que ecclesiam Sancti Johannis fundavit et fratrum suorum", to Colchester St. John[750] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 165.].  The History of the foundation of St John's abbey, Colchester also names "Eudoni...major domus regiæ" and "Roasya uxor eius...Gilbertum comes, Rohaisæ frater"[751] [Dugdale Monasticon IV, Colchester St John Abbey, Essex, I, Historia Fundationis, p. 607.].  Other sources suggest a different parentage for Rohese.  According to Guillaume de Jumièges and the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, she was Rohese, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Brionne, daughter of Gauthier Giffard & his wife Ermengarde (-after 1113, bur [Colchester]).  Guillaume de Jumièges names "Galterium Giffardum primum" as father of "secundum Galterium Giffardum et filias plures" of whom "una...Rohais" married "Richardo filio comitis Gisleberti"[752] [Willelmi Gemmetensis monachi Historiæ Normannorum, Du Chesne, A. (1619) Historiæ Normannorum Scriptores Antiqui (Paris) ("Willelmi Gemmetencis Historiæ (Du Chesne, 1619)"), Liber VIII, XXXVII, p. 312.].  According to the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire, "Rohesia" married secondly "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" after the death of "Ricardo filio comitis Gisleberti" and that they were both buried "tempore Henrici primi" in "castrum Clecestriæ...coenobio in honore sancti Johannis" which Eudo constructed[753] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.].  The Complete Peerage says that this parentage is "probably erroneous"[754] [CP V 113-4.].  From a chronological point of view, the connection would be tight, assuming that the death date of Richard FitzGilbert is correctly estimated to [1090] and the birth of Rohese's granddaughter by her alleged second marriage, Beatrix, is correctly assessed at [1105].  This supposed different parentage is disproved by the three sources quoted above.  Eudes & his wife had [one possible child]: 

i)          MARGUERITE ([1080/90]-).  The Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Margareta" as daughter of "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" and "Rohesia", adding that she married "Willielmo de Mandavill" by whom she was mother of "Gaufridi filii comitis Essexiæ et iure matris Normanniæ dapifer"[755] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.].  According to the Complete Peerage, this genealogy is "probably erroneous" but it does not explain the basis for the doubts[756] [CP V 113-4.].  Marguerite's second marriage is suggested by the charter dated [1141/42] under which Empress Matilda made various grants of property including a grant to "Willelmo filio Otuel fratri...Comitis Gaufredi"[757] [Round (1892), p. 169.].  The only Ottiwell has been identified was the illegitimate son of Hugh Earl of Chester.  m firstly ([1100/05]) WILLIAM de Mandeville, son of GEOFFREY de Mandeville & his first wife Adelisia --- (-[1116]).  m secondly ([1116/19]) OTTIWELL, [maybe OTTIWELL FitzHugh, illegitimate son of HUGH Earl of Chester & his mistress ---] (-drowned off Barfleur, Normandy 25 Nov 1120)."
(source:  http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3P-S.htm#_ftnref747)

As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment.  However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife.  For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo.

Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is this a reasonable conclusion?

Cheers,

Pete

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Peter Stewart
2016-05-03 01:23:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Many thanks again Peter.
I set out below an extract from the website, 'Foundation for Medieval
Genealogy, Medieval Lands - A prosopography of medieval European noble
and royal families, Untitled English Nobility P-S', which provides certain
information on the identify of Eudo's wife Rose.
Does this assist in clarifying her identify?
"... m ROHESE, daughter of RICHARD FitzGilbert de Brionne & his wife
Rohese Giffard (-7 Jan 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy[747] [Domesday
Descendants, p. 400.]). "Eudo dapifer domini regis" founded Colchester
St John, for the souls of King Henry I, Queen Matilda "...uxore mea
Roaysia", by undated charter[748] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 1.].
Her parentage is confirmed by the undated charter under which "Rohais
uxor Eudonis dapiferi" donated "manerium de Halingberi sicut dominus
meus Eudo die qua vivus et mortuus fuit illud habebat" and land which
"Gelebertus frater meus" gave her, for the souls of "Eudonis dapiferi
mariti mei et Gilberti fratris mei"[749] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p.
48. ], which is corroborated by the undated charter under which
"Walterus filius Roberti" donated "terram de teia" to Colchester St.
John, for the souls of "patris mei Roberti filii Ricardi et matris mee
Matildis et...Rohaise amite mee que ecclesiam Sancti Johannis fundavit
et fratrum suorum", to Colchester St. John[750] [Colchester St John,
Vol. I, p. 165.]. The History of the foundation of St John's abbey,
Colchester also names "Eudoni...major domus regiæ" and "Roasya uxor
eius...Gilbertum comes, Rohaisæ frater"[751] [Dugdale Monasticon IV,
Colchester St John Abbey, Essex, I, Historia Fundationis, p. 607.].
Other sources suggest a different parentage for Rohese. According to
Guillaume de Jumièges and the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey,
she was Rohese, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Brionne, daughter of
Gauthier Giffard & his wife Ermengarde (-after 1113, bur [Colchester]).
Guillaume de Jumièges names "Galterium Giffardum primum" as father of
"secundum Galterium Giffardum et filias plures" of whom "una...Rohais"
married "Richardo filio comitis Gisleberti"[752] [Willelmi Gemmetensis
monachi Historiæ Normannorum, Du Chesne, A. (1619) Historiæ Normannorum
Scriptores Antiqui (Paris) ("Willelmi Gemmetencis Historiæ (Du Chesne,
1619)"), Liber VIII, XXXVII, p. 312.]. According to the Genealogia
Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire, "Rohesia" married secondly
"Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" after the death of "Ricardo filio
comitis Gisleberti" and that they were both buried "tempore Henrici
primi" in "castrum Clecestriæ...coenobio in honore sancti Johannis"
which Eudo constructed[753] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey,
Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. The Complete Peerage says that this
parentage is "probably erroneous"[754] [CP V 113-4.]. From a
chronological point of view, the connection would be tight, assuming
that the death date of Richard FitzGilbert is correctly estimated to
[1090] and the birth of Rohese's granddaughter by her alleged second
marriage, Beatrix, is correctly assessed at [1105]. This supposed
different parentage is disproved by the three sources quoted above.
i) MARGUERITE ([1080/90]-). The Genealogia Fundatoris of
Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Margareta" as daughter of "Eudoni
dapifero Regis Normanniæ" and "Rohesia", adding that she married
"Willielmo de Mandavill" by whom she was mother of "Gaufridi filii
comitis Essexiæ et iure matris Normanniæ dapifer"[755] [Dugdale
Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. According
to the Complete Peerage, this genealogy is "probably erroneous" but it
does not explain the basis for the doubts[756] [CP V 113-4.].
Marguerite's second marriage is suggested by the charter dated [1141/42]
under which Empress Matilda made various grants of property including a
grant to "Willelmo filio Otuel fratri...Comitis Gaufredi"[757] [Round
(1892), p. 169.]. The only Ottiwell has been identified was the
illegitimate son of Hugh Earl of Chester. m firstly ([1100/05]) WILLIAM
de Mandeville, son of GEOFFREY de Mandeville & his first wife Adelisia
--- (-[1116]). m secondly ([1116/19]) OTTIWELL, [maybe OTTIWELL
FitzHugh, illegitimate son of HUGH Earl of Chester & his mistress ---]
(-drowned off Barfleur, Normandy 25 Nov 1120)."
(source: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3P-
S.htm#_ftnref747)
The trouble with evidence from Colchester charters is that many of them are not reliable - the cartulary was compiled in the 13th century and some documents were substituted in the 14th. In 1911 Armitage Robinson concluded that ' the compiler or compilers of these forgeries must have had a number of genuine documents, which, though insufficient for the purposes contemplated, furnished the necessary historical setting ' (*Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster* p. 166). The Clare family connection may be true, but evidence independent of St John's abbey would be needed to establish the facts beyond question. Simply quoting snippets from dubious charters without context, as in the Medieval Lands database above, gives a false impression of certainty. The fact that the charter of Rohese does not call her brother Gilbert 'count' as in the foundation history, and the charter of Walter fitz Robert calling her his 'amita', suggest that these may be genuine documents, but these two sidelights are short of conclusive.
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment.
However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd
cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided
therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be
the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's
wife. For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's
wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo.
The possibility of Geoffrey de Mandeville taking his rights to Eudo's estates and dapiferate from a collateral relationship rather than direct descent is very limited. Eudo had several brothers: of these, Adam is excluded as the maternal grandfather of Geoffrey since Eudo was his heir; Robert was a bishop; Hubert had male heirs of his own. The only one left who could have been Geoffrey's grandfather, giving him seniority as Eudo's heir, was Radulf, castellan of Nottingham - but in that case, why wasn't his castellany part of the inheritance that Geoffrey was entitled to?
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de
Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end
which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is
this a reasonable conclusion?
Rohese de Vere's brother William, bishop of Hereford & chancellor, described their mother as 'Adeliza, filia Gilberti de Clare', so there is not much room for error there.

I think your caution about Geoffrey de Mandeville's maternal grandmother is warranted, and Keats-Rohan's unqualified assertion is too strong - without further evidence it is probably impossible to resolve this.

Peter Stewart
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-04 03:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Peter,

Many thanks for your time and valuable insight. It have learned a considerable amount and it has clarified the issues discussed. Your contribution and assistance is certainly appreciated.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-04 06:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Hi Peter,
Many thanks for your time and valuable insight. It have learned a considerable amount and it has clarified the issues discussed. Your contribution and assistance is certainly appreciated.
This is just what I wanted to say to you - in an earlier post I
suggested that applying Occam's razor would lead to making Rohese de
Clare the only wife of Eudo, but your conscientious approach has
persuaded me that it must actually make her his second wife, because it
is necessary to assume a prior marriage in order to account for the
inheritance of rights by Geoffrey de Mandeville as well as for his
marriage to a grand-niece of Rohese. I can't find anywhere that this
solution has been posited in print since Round and Hollister both
overlooked it, but perhaps I am missing something.

Peter Stewart
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-06 07:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

I am curious if there is an authoritative pedigree of the "de Rie" family? I have seen multiple references and narratives regarding Eudo Dapifer, his brothers and his father Hubert I "de Rie". However, I have not seen any authoritative evidence of a pedigree beyond Hubert. I would be appreciative of any insight into whether this has been documented, or otherwise sensibly conjectured. Many thanks.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter Stewart
2016-05-06 11:05:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings,
I am curious if there is an authoritative pedigree of the "de Rie"
family? I have seen multiple references and narratives regarding Eudo
Dapifer, his brothers and his father Hubert I "de Rie". However, I
have not seen any authoritative evidence of a pedigree beyond Hubert.
I would be appreciative of any insight into whether this has been
documented, or otherwise sensibly conjectured. Many thanks.
The most thorough study I know of is 'Les seigneurs de Ryes en Bessin: études historiques' by Romain-Auguste-Laurent Pezet, originally published in *Mémoires de la Société d'agriculture, sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Bayeux* 8 (1879) 81-196 (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k433567m/f106), and reprinted in the series Monographies des villes et villages de France (Paris, 2012).

I should have remembered to check this when I was looking for a collateral relationship as suggested by Round - it turns out that Eudo's brother Radulf did have male heirs of his own, so what I had thought a limited possibility is in fact a dead end.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-09 01:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings,
I am curious if there is an authoritative pedigree of the "de Rie"
family? I have seen multiple references and narratives regarding Eudo
Dapifer, his brothers and his father Hubert I "de Rie". However, I
have not seen any authoritative evidence of a pedigree beyond Hubert.
I would be appreciative of any insight into whether this has been
documented, or otherwise sensibly conjectured. Many thanks.
The most thorough study I know of is 'Les seigneurs de Ryes en Bessin: études historiques' by Romain-Auguste-Laurent Pezet, originally published in *Mémoires de la Société d'agriculture, sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Bayeux* 8 (1879) 81-196 (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k433567m/f106), and reprinted in the series Monographies des villes et villages de France (Paris, 2012).
I should have remembered to check this when I was looking for a collateral relationship as suggested by Round - it turns out that Eudo's brother Radulf did have male heirs of his own, so what I had thought a limited possibility is in fact a dead end.
This has been challenged off-list, on the grounds that Pezet identified
Eudo de Ryes (who died in 1120) as the dapifer whose nephew Robert of La
Haye, son of Radulf, confirmed in 1105 the donations of Turstin Haldup
and his son Eudes au Capel in 1056/64 founding Lessay abbey.

The origins of the seigneurial family of La Haye are obscure, but in my
opinion Pezet was most probably correct - the alternative identification
of Robert's uncle Eudo, the dapifer referred to in 1105 when Eudo de
Ryes certainly held the office, with Eudes au Capel who had died in 1089
makes much less sense. Apart from the peculiarity this would read into
the charter text in question, there is a chronological difficulty: Eudes
au Capel was the father of Radulf who became count of Aversa in 1045. In
other words, Eudes must have been a very old man when he died in 1089
and it is somewhat unlikely that his son Radulf returned to Normandy and
became sensechal to the count of Mortain as was Radulf the father of
Robert of La Haye. It seems more plausible to me that Robert's father
Radulf was the brother of Eudo de Ryes, that he was sensechal of Mortain
as well as castellan of Nottingham and very probably lord of Crick.

How they were related to Turstin Haldup and his son Eudes au Capel is a
mystery - the simplest explanation is that Hubert of Ryes, father of
Eudo and Radulf, married a sister of Eudes au Capel.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-09 07:10:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart via
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings,
I am curious if there is an authoritative pedigree of the "de Rie"
family? I have seen multiple references and narratives regarding Eudo
Dapifer, his brothers and his father Hubert I "de Rie". However, I
have not seen any authoritative evidence of a pedigree beyond Hubert.
I would be appreciative of any insight into whether this has been
documented, or otherwise sensibly conjectured. Many thanks.
The most thorough study I know of is 'Les seigneurs de Ryes en Bessin: études historiques' by Romain-Auguste-Laurent Pezet, originally published in *Mémoires de la Société d'agriculture, sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Bayeux* 8 (1879) 81-196 (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k433567m/f106), and reprinted in the series Monographies des villes et villages de France (Paris, 2012).
I should have remembered to check this when I was looking for a collateral relationship as suggested by Round - it turns out that Eudo's brother Radulf did have male heirs of his own, so what I had thought a limited possibility is in fact a dead end.
This has been challenged off-list, on the grounds that Pezet identified
Eudo de Ryes (who died in 1120) as the dapifer whose nephew Robert of La
Haye, son of Radulf, confirmed in 1105 the donations of Turstin Haldup
and his son Eudes au Capel in 1056/64 founding Lessay abbey.
The origins of the seigneurial family of La Haye are obscure, but in my
opinion Pezet was most probably correct - the alternative identification
of Robert's uncle Eudo, the dapifer referred to in 1105 when Eudo de
Ryes certainly held the office, with Eudes au Capel who had died in 1089
makes much less sense. Apart from the peculiarity this would read into
the charter text in question, there is a chronological difficulty: Eudes
au Capel was the father of Radulf who became count of Aversa in 1045. In
other words, Eudes must have been a very old man when he died in 1089
and it is somewhat unlikely that his son Radulf returned to Normandy and
became sensechal to the count of Mortain as was Radulf the father of
Robert of La Haye. It seems more plausible to me that Robert's father
Radulf was the brother of Eudo de Ryes, that he was sensechal of Mortain
as well as castellan of Nottingham and very probably lord of Crick.
How they were related to Turstin Haldup and his son Eudes au Capel is a
mystery - the simplest explanation is that Hubert of Ryes, father of
Eudo and Radulf, married a sister of Eudes au Capel.
This is a bit cryptic - the problem is that charters describe Robert of
La Haye as 'nepos', which could mean either grandson or nephew, of Eudo.

Eudes au Capel's father Turstin Haldup was also known as Richard, and
Robert of La Haye had a son named Richard. In a charter dated 1126 the
relationships are muddled by a scribal error - the document reads
"Robertus de Haia Ricardus et Eudonis nepos dederunt ..." . This
probably should mean "Robertus de Haia Eudonis nepos et Ricardus
dederunt ..." (Robert of La Haye, nephew of Eudo, and Richard gave ...),
referring to Robert and his son Richard.

However, Horace Round gave an unconvincing emendation and mistranslated
this as "Robert de Haia, grandson of Richard and nephew of Eudo (Ricardi
et Eudonis nepos) gave ...", making 'nepos' do a contorted double duty
while misrepresenting the plural verb 'dederunt', so that Richard refers
to Turstin Haldup.

Apart from the charter dated 1105 as interpreted by some, the only
source calling Eudes au Capel by the title dapifer is Orderic, who said
that Turstin's daughter Emma took refuge with her brother Eudo, dapifer
of the duke of Normandy ("ad Eudonem fratrem suum Normannici ducis
dapiferum ... secessit"). This may have been confusion on Orderic's part
between Eudes au Capel and Eudo de Ryes, whom elsewhere he called
dapifer. The 1105 charter is not useful evidence that Orderic was
correct, and the lack of any other document making the very long-lived
Eudes au Capel into a ducal dapifer is glaring. There was a second
dapifer of this name, but he died aged 26 (and his father's name was
Stigand).

Eudes au Capel married William the Conqueror's half-sister Muriel
(apparently as his second wife, since Wace says that they had no
children whereas Eudes had a son active in 1045), and if Orderic had
known much about him he would most probably have mentioned that
relationship.

Peter Stewart
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-09 22:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Peter,

Many thanks for your extensive insight and analysis. I am unfamiliar, to a large extent, with the individuals referenced in your last few posts. When convenient, I would appreciate it if you would please advise me of the following:

1. Does the publication 'Les seigneurs de Ryes en Bessin: études historiques', by Romain-Auguste-Laurent Pezet, establish or propose the wife (wives), parentage and/or further ancestry of Hubert de Rie? I am embarrassed to admit my unilingualism renders me unable to meaningfully review the article for which you kindly provided the link;

2. Is it the abovementioned Pezet article that references Eudo du Capel being conflated with Eudo Dapifer? I assume it is in Note 2 on p. 130;

3. What relationships can be established (unlikely) or reasonably conjectured based on the Eudes au Capel v. Eudo de Rie discussion?; and

4. For further discussion regarding Orderic Vitalis' identification of Eudo au Capel v. Eudo de Rie, please see p. 124, Note 2 (which continues on p. 125) of 'The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Volume II: Books III and IV', edited by Marjorie Chibnall -

https://books.google.ca/books?id=s6Vlc8FJEksC&pg=PA124&dq=%22THURSTAN+HALDUP%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibh5Lf_83MAhUozIMKHaC4CasQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=%22THURSTAN%20HALDUP%22&f=false.

Again, I am not familiar enough with this material to provide any useful comment thereon.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-09 23:53:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Hi Peter,
1. Does the publication 'Les seigneurs de Ryes en Bessin: études historiques', by Romain-Auguste-Laurent Pezet, establish or propose the wife (wives), parentage and/or further ancestry of Hubert de Rie? I am embarrassed to admit my unilingualism renders me unable to meaningfully review the article for which you kindly provided the link;
According to Pezet the first recorded possessor of Ryes was named
Geoffrey, succeeded by his son Eudes who gave a moiety to Fécamp abbey
in 1026 - the latter's heir was most probably Hubert, perhaps his son.
On a quick look I didn't spot any information about Hubert's marriage/s.
He and his three eldest sons saved the life of the young duke William at
the time of the revolt by Guy of Brionne and others a few months before
the battle of Val-ès-Dunes in 1047 (Pezet thought that Eudo was the
eldest of these three, but unless he lived to around 90 he could not
have been one of them since he died in February 1120).
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
2. Is it the abovementioned Pezet article that references Eudo du Capel being conflated with Eudo Dapifer? I assume it is in Note 2 on p. 130;
Yes, and on p. 138 in note 4 Pezet identified Eudo of Ryes as the
dapifer/uncle of Robert de la Haye.
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
3. What relationships can be established (unlikely) or reasonably conjectured based on the Eudes au Capel v. Eudo de Rie discussion?; and
As I said before, the relationship is mysterious - Eudo of Ryes was one
of the (many) witnesses to a royal confirmation in 1080 of gifts made by
Eudes au Capel and his father Turstin Haldup to the abbey they had
founded at Lessay in 1056, and by 1105 Robert of La Haye (son of Radulf,
the count of Mortain's seneschal) had inherited the founders' rights
there. Eudes au Capel had a son Radulf who was in southern Italy by 1045
and does not appear again; by his (evidently second) wife Muriel (of
Conteville) Eudes reportedly had no children, or at least none that Wace
heard of in the 12th century. The simplest conjecture seems to me that
Eudes au Capel had a sister who married Hubert of Ryes and was mother of
their (perhaps eldest) son Radulf, castellan of Nottingham, probably
father of Robert of La Haye, but there can be no certainty on the
available evidence.
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
4. For further discussion regarding Orderic Vitalis' identification of Eudo au Capel v. Eudo de Rie, please see p. 124, Note 2 (which continues on p. 125) of 'The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Volume II: Books III and IV', edited by Marjorie Chibnall -
https://books.google.ca/books?id=s6Vlc8FJEksC&pg=PA124&dq=%22THURSTAN+HALDUP%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibh5Lf_83MAhUozIMKHaC4CasQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=%22THURSTAN%20HALDUP%22&f=false.
Again, I am not familiar enough with this material to provide any useful comment thereon.
Chibnall went on to reference the 1105 charter as supporting Orderic's
identification of Eudes au Capel as the dapifer/uncle of Robert, and
thought that since Orderic knew well the monk Benedict, a nephew of
Eudes, he 'is likely to be right'. However, this is messy reasoning.
Eudes au Capel was one of the most prominent magnates in the Cotentin, a
brother-in-law of William the Conqueror, and lived until 1089 when he
must have been around 90, yet he does not occur as dapifer in any of
William's charters. Orderic referred numerous times to Eudo the dapifer,
meaning Eudo of Ryes who does occur in this capacity independently.
Orderic was not always careful and reliable about people who fell
outside his immediate interest, including those with whom he was within
a few degrees of separation, and a passing mention by him along with the
contentious interpretation of one charter are not sufficient evidence
for Chibnall's conclusion.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart via
2016-05-09 23:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart via
Chibnall went on to reference the 1105 charter as supporting Orderic's
identification of Eudes au Capel as the dapifer/uncle of Robert
This is sloppy on my part - Orderic made Eudes au Capel a dapifer but
did not mention Robert of La Haye, whose connection comes in the 1105
charter cited by Chibnall to support the statement of Orderic.

Peter Stewart
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-17 06:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

I'm engaging in a bit of a seguay here. However, I'd be grateful if anyone could direct me to any historically conclusive evidence that Ernulph II de Mandeville was the son of Ernulph I de Mandeville, son of the 1st Earl of Essex.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-17 07:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For clarity, I am pondering whether Ernulph II may have been the son of one of Ernulph I’s brothers. The only connection I have been able to identify (albeit not with exhaustive examination) among the purported children of Ernulph I involving Ernulph II is the following reference (indirectly confirming them as siblings?) in the ‘Curia Regis Rolls of the reigns of Richard I. and John, PRO’, Richard 1.-2 John, Vol. 1, (1922), published by HMSO, London, pp. 311 (c. 1200), which references both Ernulph II and Geoffrey III in connection with Huggate, Yorkshire. Again, I’m grateful for any insight, clarification or suggestions for further research. Thanks!

Cheers,

Pete
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings,
I'm engaging in a bit of a segue here. However, I'd be grateful if anyone could direct me to any historically conclusive evidence that Ernulph II de Mandeville was the son of Ernulph I de Mandeville, son of the 1st Earl of Essex.
Cheers,
Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-05-18 02:24:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

The pedigree, related to Ernulph II de Mandeville, as I understand it, is as follows:

Geoffrey II de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex

b. before 1091 (source: ‘The Official Baronage of England showing the succession, dignities, and offices of every peer from 1066 to 1885’, (1886), Vol. I – Dukes – Viscounts, by James E. Doyle, pp. 682) or 1100/05. Geoffrey had at least 1, and perhaps 2, siblings: (1) Beatrix (b. [1105]-[Rickling, Essex] and d. April 19 [1197 or before], bur Walden Abbey; and, perhaps, (2) Alice (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands – A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, England, Earls Created 1138-1143 (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

m. Rose de Vere (c. 1110 – 1170 or after)

d. September 26, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk (source: ‘Oxford Dictionary of National Biography’, (2004), Vol. 36 (Macquarie-Martin), pp. 405) or September 14 or 16, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk and bur 1163 in New Temple Church, London (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

his eldest son (either illegitimate or from an earlier marriage – not, apparently, the son of Rose de Vere),

Ernulph I de Mandeville

b. [approx. 1110-20/1120-25]. Ernulph had at least 5 siblings: (1) Geoffrey III (d.s.p. Chester on October 21, 1166, bur Walden Abbey); (2) William (d.s.p. [Rouen/Gisors/Le Vaudreuil] Normandy on November 14, 1189, bur Abbey of Mortemer); (3) Beatrice; (4) Robert (d.s.p. before November 14, 1189); and (5) Matilda (m. (i) Peter of Ludgershall and (ii) Hugh II of Buckland (d. 1175)). (source: ‘Domesday Descendants – A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066-1166’, Vol. II. Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum, (2002), by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, p. 566; Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

m. Alice d’Oilly

d. c. 1178 (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

his son,

Ernulph II de Mandeville

b. [approx. 1140-50]. Ernulph had at least 3 siblings: (1) Geoffrey of Highworth (d. after 1190/94 and had a son Geoffrey); (2) Ralph of Kingham; and (3) Matilda (m. Adam de Port) + other daughters. (source: ‘Domesday Descendants’, Vol. II, p. 566). Ernulph was, as I understand it, the 2nd or 3rd son of Ernulph I.

m. Ernulph married NN who died before c. 1185-97. He married secondly (or after NN) Maud de Luvetot c. 1185-97.

d. c. 1216

his daughter,

NN (Christiana) de Mandeville

b. [approx. 1180-90]. NN had at least 1 sibling: (1) Ernulph III (d. 1251-54).

m. Robert II de Mounteney of Mountnessing, Essex (c. 1175/85 - before Michaelmas 1224)

d. in or post 1234 (source: ‘Calendar of the Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III., preserved in the PRO’, (1908), Henry III – 1234-1237, p. 158)

I cannot, however, identify any primary evidence to confirm:

1. that Ernulph II was the son of Ernulph I;
2. the identity of Ernulph II’s first wife; or
3. that NN de Mandeville was the daughter of Ernulph II. There is, however, an abundant amount of corroborative evidence for #1 and 3. Assistance with this would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2016-06-02 07:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings,
Geoffrey II de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex
b. before 1091 (source: ‘The Official Baronage of England showing the succession, dignities, and offices of every peer from 1066 to 1885’, (1886), Vol. I – Dukes – Viscounts, by James E. Doyle, pp. 682) or 1100/05. Geoffrey had at least 1, and perhaps 2, siblings: (1) Beatrix (b. [1105]-[Rickling, Essex] and d. April 19 [1197 or before], bur Walden Abbey; and, perhaps, (2) Alice (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands – A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, England, Earls Created 1138-1143 (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))
m. Rose de Vere (c. 1110 – 1170 or after)
d. September 26, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk (source: ‘Oxford Dictionary of National Biography’, (2004), Vol. 36 (Macquarie-Martin), pp. 405) or September 14 or 16, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk and bur 1163 in New Temple Church, London (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))
his eldest son (either illegitimate or from an earlier marriage – not, apparently, the son of Rose de Vere),
Ernulph I de Mandeville
b. [approx. 1110-20/1120-25]. Ernulph had at least 5 siblings: (1) Geoffrey III (d.s.p. Chester on October 21, 1166, bur Walden Abbey); (2) William (d.s.p. [Rouen/Gisors/Le Vaudreuil] Normandy on November 14, 1189, bur Abbey of Mortemer); (3) Beatrice; (4) Robert (d.s.p. before November 14, 1189); and (5) Matilda (m. (i) Peter of Ludgershall and (ii) Hugh II of Buckland (d. 1175)). (source: ‘Domesday Descendants – A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066-1166’, Vol. II. Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum, (2002), by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, p. 566; Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))
m. Alice d’Oilly
d. c. 1178 (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))
his son,
Ernulph II de Mandeville
b. [approx. 1140-50]. Ernulph had at least 3 siblings: (1) Geoffrey of Highworth (d. after 1190/94 and had a son Geoffrey); (2) Ralph of Kingham; and (3) Matilda (m. Adam de Port) + other daughters. (source: ‘Domesday Descendants’, Vol. II, p. 566). Ernulph was, as I understand it, the 2nd or 3rd son of Ernulph I.
m. Ernulph married NN who died before c. 1185-97. He married secondly (or after NN) Maud de Luvetot c. 1185-97.
d. c. 1216
his daughter,
NN (Christiana) de Mandeville
b. [approx. 1180-90]. NN had at least 1 sibling: (1) Ernulph III (d. 1251-54).
m. Robert II de Mounteney of Mountnessing, Essex (c. 1175/85 - before Michaelmas 1224)
d. in or post 1234 (source: ‘Calendar of the Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III., preserved in the PRO’, (1908), Henry III – 1234-1237, p. 158)
1. that Ernulph II was the son of Ernulph I;
2. the identity of Ernulph II’s first wife; or
3. that NN de Mandeville was the daughter of Ernulph II. There is, however, an abundant amount of corroborative evidence for #1 and 3. Assistance with this would be much appreciated.
Cheers,
Pete
Greetings,

For what it is worth, my primary interest is in learning anything that may provide conclusive or highly corroborative evidence that Ernulph II (who was, apparently, a Crusader at Acre in 1191) was the son of Ernulph I de Mandeville (son of Earl Geoffrey).

Any assistance is, of course, very much appreciated as I am currently stumped!

Cheers,

Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2017-07-17 23:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

Inquiry #1

Just a brief follow-up to my earlier note. I’d still be grateful for any feedback or information with respect to these inquiries. For expediency sake, I have set them out again below:

Geoffrey II de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex

b. before 1091 (source: ‘The Official Baronage of England showing the succession, dignities, and offices of every peer from 1066 to 1885’, (1886), Vol. I – Dukes – Viscounts, by James E. Doyle, pp. 682) or 1100/05. Geoffrey had at least 1, and perhaps 2, siblings: (1) Beatrix (b. [1105]-[Rickling, Essex] and d. April 19 [1197 or before], bur Walden Abbey; and, perhaps, (2) Alice (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands – A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, England, Earls Created 1138-1143 (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

m. Rose de Vere (c. 1110 – 1170 or after)

d. September 26, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk (source: ‘Oxford Dictionary of National Biography’, (2004), Vol. 36 (Macquarie-Martin), pp. 405) or September 14 or 16, 1144 – Mildenhall, Suffolk and bur 1163 in New Temple Church, London (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

his eldest son (either illegitimate or from an earlier marriage – not, apparently, the son of Rose de Vere),

Ernulph I de Mandeville

b. [approx. 1110-20/1120-25]. Ernulph had at least 5 siblings: (1) Geoffrey III (d.s.p. Chester on October 21, 1166, bur Walden Abbey); (2) William (d.s.p. [Rouen/Gisors/Le Vaudreuil] Normandy on November 14, 1189, bur Abbey of Mortemer); (3) Beatrice; (4) Robert (d.s.p. before November 14, 1189); and (5) Matilda (m. (i) Peter of Ludgershall and (ii) Hugh II of Buckland (d. 1175)). (source: ‘Domesday Descendants – A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066-1166’, Vol. II. Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum, (2002), by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, p. 566; Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

m. Alice d’Oilly

d. c. 1178 (source: Foundation for Medieval Genealogy - (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL1.htm#_Toc434831801))

his son,

Ernulph II de Mandeville

b. [approx. 1140-50]. Ernulph had at least 3 siblings: (1) Geoffrey of Highworth (d. after 1190/94 and had a son Geoffrey); (2) Ralph of Kingham; and (3) Matilda (m. Adam de Port) + other daughters. (source: ‘Domesday Descendants’, Vol. II, p. 566). Ernulph was, as I understand it, the 2nd or 3rd son of Ernulph I.

m. Ernulph married NN who died before c. 1185-97. He married secondly (or after NN) Maud de Luvetot c. 1185-97.

d. c. 1216

I cannot, however, identify any primary evidence to confirm:

1. that Ernulph II was the son of Ernulph I; and
2. the identity of Ernulph II’s first wife.

Assistance with this would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Pete
pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com)
Peter G. M. Dale
2017-07-17 23:18:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

Inquiry #2

I have been spending a little time lately studying the Mandeville family and, in particular, its descent via Ernulph I de Mandeville. The literature seems to be contradictory as to whether Ernulph was:

1. A legitimate son of Geoffrey II de Mandeville and his wife Rose de Vere;
2. A legitimate son of Geoffrey II and a 1st or earlier wife; or
3. An illegitimate son of Geoffrey II.

Save for the obvious fact that Ernulph I did not succeed Geoffrey II as Earl of Essex (post Ernulph I’s excommunication and outlawing), I am uncertain if there are any other facts or arguments against #1 above. I would be very interested in any evidence that more conclusively supports any of 1-3 above or, alternatively, mitigates against such positions.

Basically, any insight or current thought on this topic would be much appreciated!

Cheers,

Pete
pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com)
Peter G. M. Dale
2017-07-22 07:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

Many thanks Peter for your prompt and informative response. I generally agree with your analysis and certainly appreciate you taking the time to review and respond to my inquiry.

I have the following additional comments, with respect to which, I welcome any additional insight:

[1] As per my Inquiry #1 (1), I have re-acquainted myself with the following charter which I believe corroborates that Ernulph II de Mandeville was the son of Ernulph I - see - ‘Early Yorkshire Charters, Volume 2, (1915, 2013), edited by William Farrer, published by Cambridge University Press, pp. 520-21, charter #1257 (c. 1184-1200) which sets out confirmation by Geoffrey de Mandeville (proposed brother of Ernulph II) of the grant by Abbot Hugh of Osney Abbey concerning one mark’s worth of land in Huggate which Alice (d’Oily), wife of Ernulph I, devised to the church of Osney. Of particular interest are the witnesses which include, among others, Geoffrey de Mandeville (as above) and his brother Ernulph II – ‘Gaufrido de Maundevill et Ernulfo fratre ejus’. (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=xz05-ySRdnoC&pg=PA520&lpg=PA520&dq=%22ernulfi+de+mandevill%22&source=bl&ots=ivuW8ki71K&sig=d-gPT1DOdhGkuXJvQAEg_ppxFcY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij1ubFyITVAhVj5oMKHT0FBGkQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=%22ernulfi%20de%20mandevill%22&f=false). Do you agree that this is demonstrative confirmation that Ernulph II de Mandeville is the son of Ernulph I and his wife Alice d’Oily?

[2] Secondly, I understand that Matthew Paris wrote that Ernulph I was disinherited and banished. I’d be appreciative of confirmation of the reference to that passage. Would it be reasonable to infer that such articulation by Paris that Ernulph I was “disinherited” would corroborate that he was a legitimate child of Geoffrey II de Mandeville – if not a son of Rose de Vere?

[3] Lastly, is there any reasonable and, prima facie, compelling reason to believe that Ernulph I may, in fact, be a legitimate child of Geoffrey II de Mandeville and Rose de Vere?

Cheers,

Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2017-08-03 23:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Peter,

It just occurred to me that I did not thank you for your prompt and informative response to my inquiry. It was certainly appreciated. Further, I have noted some rather intemperate posts regarding you recently and want to express, in contrast thereto, my appreciation for your expertise and assistance in this and other threads in which I have participated. I am sure I am not alone in valuing your insight and contributions.

Cheers,

Pete
Peter G. M. Dale
2017-08-11 06:54:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

1. Assuming that Margaret, daughter of Eudo Dapifer, was not the daughter of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, does anyone have any evidence, theories or conjecture on who may have been the mother of said Margaret?

2. Similarly, assuming that Ernulph I de Mandeville was a legitimate (or illegitimate) son of Geoffrey II de Mandeville (1st Earl of Essex) prior (or early in) his marriage to Rose de Vere, does anyone have any evidence, theories or conjecture on who may have been the mother of Ernulph?

Any insight would be welcome and appreciated.

Cheers,

Pete

e-mail – pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com
Peter G. M. Dale
2017-09-27 03:08:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

Please find below a translation of a charter of Ernulph I de Mandeville in favour of Hurley Priory which I acquired from Westminster Abbey which is referred to by Rev. F. T. Wethered in ‘St. Mary’s, Hurley, in the Middle Ages: based on Hurley Charters and Deeds’, (1898). Note the reference to “for the health of the souls of my father and of me and of my wife the lady Adeliza”. In addition, for anyone else researching this family, note the children listed below which includes a William and a Beatrice which I have not seen referenced widely elsewhere.

Is it fair to say any one of the following:

1. The absence of a reference to Ernulph’s mother in the charter supports he is not the son of Rose de Vere;
2. The absence of a reference to his mother supports that Ernulph is illegitimate v of legitimate birth by a prior wife of Geoffrey II de Mandeville; or
3. No inferences or conclusions can be drawn from the absence of a mother.

Any elaboration, other inferences or conclusions that may be drawn, or further insight would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Pete
e-mail - pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com

“WAM 2307

Arnulf de Mandeuilla.
I have granted in perpetual alms and given to the church of St Mary of Herleia 1 hide of land in Chaingheha', half a hide from the demesne and half a hide from lawarlande, to wit, that virgate which was of Turb[er]t the small (parui) and the other virgate which was of Roger the red (rufi) and 4 acres of meadow, 2 acres in refhamme and 2 acres in harstanneshamme from the better part of the meadow and 1 messuage in the croft of Brettesberghe. I have given this to the church of St Mary with my body for the health of the souls of my father and of me and of my wife the lady Adeliza and of all my heirs who shall succeed me, free from all services etc.
And I Geoffrey de Mandeuilla his heir have confirmed this gift with my body.
Witnesses: Geoffrey his heir, the lady Adeliza, the wife of the same Arnulf, Arnulf his son, William his son, Maud de Port his daughter, Beatrice his daughter, Emma de Peri, John de Matha' and Alan de Matha' knights, Bartholomew the chaplain, Pastoralis the chaplain, Henry the clerk, Richard nofranchis, Ralph son of Turstan, Nicholas Harpeur, Walter de Corneuill', Nicholas the reeve (p[re]posit[us]) Perchehaie, Ranulph beart, Walter, Osbert son of Godfrey, knights, and m a n y o t h e r s”
Peter Stewart
2017-09-27 04:28:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter G. M. Dale
Greetings,
Please find below a translation of a charter of Ernulph I de Mandeville in favour of Hurley Priory which I acquired from Westminster Abbey which is referred to by Rev. F. T. Wethered in ‘St. Mary’s, Hurley, in the Middle Ages: based on Hurley Charters and Deeds’, (1898). Note the reference to “for the health of the souls of my father and of me and of my wife the lady Adeliza”. In addition, for anyone else researching this family, note the children listed below which includes a William and a Beatrice which I have not seen referenced widely elsewhere.
1. The absence of a reference to Ernulph’s mother in the charter supports he is not the son of Rose de Vere;
2. The absence of a reference to his mother supports that Ernulph is illegitimate v of legitimate birth by a prior wife of Geoffrey II de Mandeville; or
3. No inferences or conclusions can be drawn from the absence of a mother.
Any elaboration, other inferences or conclusions that may be drawn, or further insight would be much appreciated.
Cheers,
Pete
e-mail - pdale (at) peterdale (dot) com
“WAM 2307
Arnulf de Mandeuilla.
I have granted in perpetual alms and given to the church of St Mary of Herleia 1 hide of land in Chaingheha', half a hide from the demesne and half a hide from lawarlande, to wit, that virgate which was of Turb[er]t the small (parui) and the other virgate which was of Roger the red (rufi) and 4 acres of meadow, 2 acres in refhamme and 2 acres in harstanneshamme from the better part of the meadow and 1 messuage in the croft of Brettesberghe. I have given this to the church of St Mary with my body for the health of the souls of my father and of me and of my wife the lady Adeliza and of all my heirs who shall succeed me, free from all services etc.
And I Geoffrey de Mandeuilla his heir have confirmed this gift with my body.
Witnesses: Geoffrey his heir, the lady Adeliza, the wife of the same Arnulf, Arnulf his son, William his son, Maud de Port his daughter, Beatrice his daughter, Emma de Peri, John de Matha' and Alan de Matha' knights, Bartholomew the chaplain, Pastoralis the chaplain, Henry the clerk, Richard nofranchis, Ralph son of Turstan, Nicholas Harpeur, Walter de Corneuill', Nicholas the reeve (p[re]posit[us]) Perchehaie, Ranulph beart, Walter, Osbert son of Godfrey, knights, and m a n y o t h e r s”
The witness list as given by Wethered can be seen here (p. 92 no. 9):
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028138265#page/n119/mode/2up.

I think your statement #3 above is fair to say - Hurley priory had been
founded by Geoffrey de Mandeville's paternal grandfather, and it would
be usual in donating to it that Ernulph would remember at least his own
father, whose inheritance had brought about his connection to the place.
It would not be unusual to remember his mother and other relatives,
though in many charters of this kind they might only be mentioned
without giving their names - as, in this case, Ernulph remembered his
"heirs" without naming any of his children in the pro anima clause,
while his son Geoffrey is named as his heir in the witness list where
the spares also appear. Equally it would not be unusual for a legitimate
son to omit his mother and other relatives. Unfortunately for us,
charters were not prepared with an eye to the curiosity of future
genealogists.

Peter Stewart

a***@mindspring.com
2016-05-01 21:07:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by Patricia Junkin via
Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the
father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct
that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare?
No. Peter/Piers de Litegarshale and his wife Maud are the parents of Geoffrey FitsPiers, Earl of Essex, it's just that Maud is of unknown parentage. This Geoffrey FitzPiers was married Beatrice de Say, coheiress of her great-uncle Geoffrey de Mandeville, the previous Earl. On her death, he remarried to Aveline de Clare. He never took the name de Mandeville, but his sons by Beatrice used it. Geoffrey FitzPiers also had children by Avelina who never took the Mandeville name, nor did they have claim to Essex (which passed via Beatrice's daughter to Bohun, rather than to Aveline's son).
taf
Hi Todd

I am confused I thought your post called Geoffrey FitzPiers and William Boclande maternal half-brothers.

So that Maud didn't marry Hugh Boclande then? or she did but was not William's mother?

Doug Smith
a***@mindspring.com
2016-05-01 21:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@mindspring.com
Post by taf
Post by Patricia Junkin via
Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the
father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct
that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare?
No. Peter/Piers de Litegarshale and his wife Maud are the parents of Geoffrey FitsPiers, Earl of Essex, it's just that Maud is of unknown parentage. This Geoffrey FitzPiers was married Beatrice de Say, coheiress of her great-uncle Geoffrey de Mandeville, the previous Earl. On her death, he remarried to Aveline de Clare. He never took the name de Mandeville, but his sons by Beatrice used it. Geoffrey FitzPiers also had children by Avelina who never took the Mandeville name, nor did they have claim to Essex (which passed via Beatrice's daughter to Bohun, rather than to Aveline's son).
taf
Hi Todd
I am confused I thought your post called Geoffrey FitzPiers and William Boclande maternal half-brothers.
So that Maud didn't marry Hugh Boclande then? or she did but was not William's mother?
Doug Smith
Sorry I understand now she did marry Hugh as well.
Loading...