Discussion:
The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
(too old to reply)
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-30 19:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

The document, Chronicon Cumbriae, is printed in three sources, one of
them being WIlliam Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 3 (1821): 584.
Dugdale may be viewed online at the following weblink:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail&id=2659

The Chronicon Cumbriae document indicates Orm Fitz Ketel married
Gravelda sister of Waltheof son of Earl Gospatric, by which marriage
Gravelda had four properties. We know that all four of these propeties
passed to Orm and Gravelda's son, Gospatric Fitz Orm, which nicely
vouches for Gospatric Fitz Orm's parentage.

Elsewhere we learn that Orm Fitz Ketel witnessed a charter for Roger of
Poitou in 1094 [Reference: William Farrer, The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of
31 Henry I ... also early Lancashire Charters) (1902)]. This would
suggest that Orm was born before 1074, and possibly earlier.

Orm Fitz Ketel (husband of Gravelda) is alleged in many sources to be
the son of a certain Ketel Fitz Eldred and his wife, Christian.
However, as best I understand Dix Preston's post of information from
Keats-Rohan's work, Domesday Descendants (see copy below), Ketel Fitz
Eldred "died several years after 1120." He occurs in his charters to
St. Bees Priory with a son, William, but no son, Orm, or grandson,
Gospatric. Judging from the available records and known chronology, it
seems to me that Ketel Fitz Eldred and Orm Fitz Ketel were likely the
same age. If so, they would obviously not be father and son.

Does anyone know of any evidence which proves that Orm Fitz Ketel was
the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred? Or, is this just a supposition which has
crept into the literature? If Ketel Fitz Eldred is truly Orm's father,
he should occur in records between 1070 and 1120, yet Keats-Rohan only
mentions that he occurs AFTER 1120. Something is wrong here.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

*FILIUS ELDRED, KETEL: Son of Eldred and a daughter of Ivo Taillcbois
(q.v.), some of whose land in the barony of Kendal he inherited.
Benefactor of the abbey of St Bees, founded 1120, to which he gave land
in Morland and Workington (Register St Bees, pp. 233 -34, no. 212) with
the assent of his wife Christiana and son William. Father also of Orm,
whose son Gospatric was his eventual heir. His grant of land to St
Leonard's, York, was confirmed by his sister's son William fitz Gilbert
of Lancaster (q.v.). He died several years after 1120. G.
Washington, ?The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal',
Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological
Society 62 (1962). Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, III, pp. 548-60,
no. V.* Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page
881
m***@btinternet.com
2005-11-30 22:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
*FILIUS ELDRED, KETEL: Son of Eldred and a daughter of Ivo Taillcbois
(q.v.), some of whose land in the barony of Kendal he inherited.
Benefactor of the abbey of St Bees, founded 1120, to which he gave land
in Morland and Workington (Register St Bees, pp. 233 -34, no. 212) with
the assent of his wife Christiana and son William. Father also of Orm,
whose son Gospatric was his eventual heir. His grant of land to St
Leonard's, York, was confirmed by his sister's son William fitz Gilbert
of Lancaster (q.v.). He died several years after 1120. G.
Washington, ?The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal',
Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological
Society 62 (1962). Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, III, pp. 548-60,
no. V.* Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page
881
Ah, the Orm has turned! (sorry, been itching to say that for days
now).

Keats-Roahn as cited above - if I am reading her rightly - says "[Ketel
fitz Eldred was] father also of Orm whose son Gospatric was his
eventual heir" - i.e. that Gospatric was eventual heir of Ketel. If
this is the case, can the relationship be traced through the descent of
property from Ketel [to Orm] to Gospatric - much in the way as the
apparent inheritance by the same Gospatric of lands formerly belonging
to G..a daughter of Gospatric can be argued to indicate his maternal
ascent?

MAR
butlergrt
2005-11-30 23:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Doug et al,
1. Doug, there is a charter where in 1093/4 Ivo de Tailebois "grants part
of the manor of Heversham to the church of St. Marys' Abbey at York".

2. In 1120 Chetel(Ketel) son of Eldred confirms the grant at St. Marys'
Abbey at York made by Ivo.

3. In 1210 Gilbert fitzReinfrid and Helwise his wife confirms grant to St.
Marys'at.....
Continuity of family looks fairly strong to me anyway, and yes I know
Gilbert fitzReinfrids wife is "Helewise" not Hawise and she was the
daughter of Warin fitzGilbert de Lancaster, who was the son of William de
Lancaster and nephew of Jordan de Lancaster. Warin de Lancaster was the
one who married the Helewise de Stuteville(not Hawise, at least according
to the charters), dau. of Robert Stuteville, Lord of Knaresborough and not
William de Lancaster, his father.
I will post a 'time line' of all the family WITH DOCUMENTED charters going
from Ivo thru the last William de Lancaster son of Gilbert fitReinfrid who
died in 1246 later this evening when I get back from the gym.
I hope this helps a little.

A teaser, William fitzWilliam(de Lancaster) was fined 30 marks for
dueling with his cousin(1176) Gospatrick fitzOrm in Westmoreland: pipe
roll 22 Henry II. It must have been quite a sight as both were fairly old,
in the taking of Castle Appleby Gospatrick fitzOrm is described as old and
grey and William de Lancaster II died in 1184 William was dead by
Michaelmas 1184 as "the Kings Sheriff answered for his men" pipe roll 30
Henry II
Best regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-03 19:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
A teaser, William fitzWilliam(de Lancaster) was fined 30 marks for
dueling with his cousin(1176) Gospatrick fitzOrm in Westmoreland: pipe
roll 22 Henry II.
Does this explicitly call them cousins.

taf
butlergrt
2005-12-03 19:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Good afternoon Todd et al,
yes it does use the explicit word cousin. On a comment to Douglas, whilst
it does seem logical, how does one explain away Ketels son William?
I become incredibly suspicious when sons names are mentioned and then
ignored as tho they don't exist while the same data is used to prove a
different descent with the same names resgardless of intepretation, while
albeit, perhaps still correct.
Best,
Emmett
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-03 19:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Good afternoon Todd et al,
yes it does use the explicit word cousin. On a comment to Douglas, whilst
it does seem logical, how does one explain away Ketels son William?
I become incredibly suspicious when sons names are mentioned and then
ignored as tho they don't exist while the same data is used to prove a
different descent with the same names resgardless of intepretation, while
albeit, perhaps still correct.
Best,
Emmett
Emmett ~

What source are you quoting? A secondary source, or the original Pipe
Rolls? Please specify.

DR
butlergrt
2005-12-04 00:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Douglas et al,
1. In reference to a duel between Gospatric fitzOrm and His cousin William
where William was fined 30 marks,(1076?) that is an English translation,
it would be piperoll 22 Henry II Westmoreland for the original.
2. Regarding William, son of Ketel, 2nd part, Secondary-I suppose
depending on your viewpoint, Both you and Michael-Anne, have, as I
interpret it, the work of K.S.B. Keats-Rohan as being how shall I say,
besides near brilliant-infallible, next best thing to Primary source
document then?
Your own post date Dec. 1, 2005, 11:19 A.M.,last paragraph;
"Filius Eldred,Ketel.....The assent of his wife Christiana and son
William....."Source "Domesday Descendants", by K.S.B. Keats-Rohen p. 881,
regarding a grant of land to the Abbey of St. Bees of land in Morland and
Workington(Register St. Bee's,pp. 233-34 #212.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-04 01:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Good Evening Douglas et al,
1. In reference to a duel between Gospatric fitzOrm and His cousin William
where William was fined 30 marks,(1076?) that is an English translation,
it would be piperoll 22 Henry II Westmoreland for the original.
Could you at least give the precise text in English?
Post by butlergrt
2. Regarding William, son of Ketel, 2nd part, Secondary-I suppose
depending on your viewpoint, Both you and Michael-Anne, have, as I
interpret it, the work of K.S.B. Keats-Rohan as being how shall I say,
besides near brilliant-infallible, next best thing to Primary source
document then?
Everyone here seems to use Keats-Rohan as infallible when she supports
their position, and ignore the parts that disagree.
Post by butlergrt
Your own post date Dec. 1, 2005, 11:19 A.M.,last paragraph;
"Filius Eldred,Ketel.....The assent of his wife Christiana and son
William....."Source "Domesday Descendants", by K.S.B. Keats-Rohen p. 881,
regarding a grant of land to the Abbey of St. Bees of land in Morland and
Workington(Register St. Bee's,pp. 233-34 #212.
I guess I still don't see what the issue is with William filius Ketel.
What is your point with him that you are trying to support with this?

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-04 08:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Everyone here seems to use Keats-Rohan as infallible when she supports
their position, and ignore the parts that disagree.
taf
Dear Todd ~

Perhaps you missed one of my posts.

I specifically stated I disagreed with Keats-Rohan regarding Ketel Fitz
Eldred being the father of Orm Fitz Ketel. I showed such a
relationship was impossible chronologically.

DR
butlergrt
2005-12-04 18:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Good Afternoon Todd, Michael-Anne, Richard and All,
The duel between William and Gospatric was a secondary source, and, as
opposed to filius, they used the term William fitzWilliam and whatever
other documentation they used, I have not seen it myself personally, it
was the authors interpretation that it was William FitzWilliam de
Lancaster II. Sorry about that.
Todd, while I pretty much support the chronology and descent of William I
and such as has been presented and posted, I still like to tie up loose
ends on this William son of Ketel "just in case" there was an early scribe
who didn't know his latin well or the individuals involved, and the two
Williams, William Lancaster I and William son of Ketel are not one in the
same. It would be nice to know he just up and died or whatever and then
things are pretty definitive. I am only like this due to personal
experience, Emmett, Henry, Robert, and Orm are common names in my family
and subsequently passed on every other generation in my family and as we
live a very,very long time we often overlap many times and things are
attributed to one(land, position or events) and it is a generation or two
later.It can be very confusing. That is why Eliminating this William
fitzKetel is important in my mind.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-03 21:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Good afternoon Todd et al,
yes it does use the explicit word cousin.
What precise word is used?

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-30 23:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Douglas I know you're anxious to state that Orm may be a son to Eldred or
possibly Eldred had a brother named Ketel, and Ketel "FitzEldred" had no heirs.

I just know you are.

Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-12-01 00:52:56 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/30/05 4:09:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< 1. Doug, there is a charter where in 1093/4 Ivo de Tailebois "grants part
of the manor of Heversham to the church of St. Marys' Abbey at York".

2. In 1120 Chetel(Ketel) son of Eldred confirms the grant at St. Marys'
Abbey at York made by Ivo.

3. In 1210 Gilbert fitzReinfrid and Helwise his wife confirms grant to St.
Marys'at.....
Continuity of family looks fairly strong to me anyway >>

But it could also be, just from this, for example, that Eldred is a brother
to Ivo.
So then Ketel would be confirming his *uncles* grant, not his grandfathers.
This would allow Doug to pull the generation up to where he wants to put it ;)

Will Johnsno
W***@aol.com
2005-12-01 00:57:02 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/30/05 4:09:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< A teaser, William fitzWilliam(de Lancaster) was fined 30 marks for
dueling with his cousin(1176) Gospatrick fitzOrm in Westmoreland: pipe
roll 22 Henry II. >>

Does it actually say "cousin" or did you add that?
butlergrt
2005-12-01 03:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will et al,
Actually that is the way I type, thought process, it was "and his cousin
Gospatrick fitzOrm" In the parenthesis de Lancaster is my adding in case
there were those who weren't aware of who it was referring to., sorry if
it caused any confusion., I just find the history interesting that goes
along with the people and could envision two old goofers with their swords
trying to duel it out over whatever it may be. Quite olbviously it was
stopped as William de Lancaster lived about another 7-8 years after words
died in 1184.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-01 19:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my previous post, I observed that Gospatric Fitz Orm's father, Orm
Fitz Ketel, and Orm's alleged father, Ketel Fitz Eldred, appeared to be
the same approximate age. I based this on the fact that Orm Fitz Ketel
was an adult in 1094, and had a wife, Gravelda, born in or before 1075,
whereas Ketel Fitz Eldred doesn't show up until in the 1120's, when he
appears with a wife, Christian, and son, William. I also observed that
Ketel Fitz Eldred's charters make no mention of his alleged son, Orm
Fitz Ketel, or his alleged grandson, Gospatric Fitz Orm. I stated my
belief that Ketel Fitz Eldred and Orm Fitz Ketel would obviously not be
father and son.

Since posting on the above chronological problem, I've had the
opportunity to study the comments made by Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan
which relate to these people in her book, Domesday Descendants. She
states that the Lancaster family claimed to be descended from Eldred,
father of Ketel Fitz Eldred, as well as Ives Taillebois. She correctly
notes that Ketel Fitz Eldred was styled "avunculus" (uncle) by William
de Lancaster I, son of Gilbert and Godith. She has constructed a very
sound pedigree which harmonizes this evidence. She identifies Ketel
Fitz Eldred as the maternal uncle of William de Lancaster I (who was
also known as William Taillebois). Ketel Fitz Eldred in turn is
identified as the son and heir of a certain Eldred and Beatrice
Taillebois, known daughter and heiress of Ives Taillebois. She
acknowledges that Ives Taillebois' lands went from Ives Taillebois to
William de Lancaster I, but does not indicate who held them in the
interim. So who then held the Taillebois properties between 1097 and
1130?

Charter evidence indicates that Ketel Fitz Eldred held the lands of his
grandfather, Ives Taillebois, which fact is indicated by Ketel's
charter to the monks of St. Mary's, York, in which he confirmed an
earlier gift of Ives Taillebois. For a transcript of Ketel Fitz
Eldred's charter to St. Mary's, York dated 1120-1130, see William
Farrer, Records relating to the Barony of Kendale, 2 (Cumberland &
Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological Society Rec. Ser. 5) (1923):
142. For a transcript of Ives Taillebois' charter to St. Mary's, York
dated 1090-1097, see William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony of
Kendale, 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 377. Curiously, Ketel confirmed the
earlier gift of his grandfather without actually naming him.

While Keats-Rohan acknowledges that William de Lancaster I was Ketel
Fitz Eldred's nephew, she provides no explanation as to how he came to
hold Ives Taillesbois' lands. As it turns out, William de Lancaster I
was the heir of his uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred. This is proven by two
records: (1) a lawsuit dated 1212 with William de Lancaster I's
granddaughter and heiress, Hawise, as the plaintiff, and (2) a charter
issued by William de Lancaster I himself. In the first record, Hawise
de Lancaster, wife of Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey, identifies herself as the
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who she calls her "ancestor" and says that
her right descended from Ketel to her "from step to step" (that is,
from generation to generation). The property she is claiming is
Brumfel and Rohetun. The first of these estates is known to have
definitely belonged to Ketel Fitz Eldred, for he gave the church there
to St. Mary's, York [see James Wilson, Register of the Priory of St.
Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 233-234]. The word "ancestor" in this
time period simply meant a blood related predecessor, which term would
readily apply to a great grand-uncle.

Date: 1212. "Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey and Helewise his wife demand against
Thomas de Brumfeld 4 carucates of land in Brumfel and Rohetun, as the
right of the said Helewise and as those whereof Ketel son of Eutret,
ancestor of the said Helewise, was seised, as of fee and right, in the
time of King Henry [I], grandfather of king Henry [II], father of the
king, and from him the right of the said Helewise descended from step
to step. Thomas says that Adam his son holds the tenement; Curia Regis
R., 55, m. 6 [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony
of kendale 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 5].

In the second record, William de Lancaster I conveyed by an undated
charter the manors of Workington and Lamplugh, Cumberland to Gospatric
Fitz Orm, in exchange for the manor of Middleton, Westmorland.
Workington, Cumberland had previously belonged to Ketel Fitz Eldred,
for he gave the church in that place to St. Mary's, York [Reference:
James Wilson, Register of the Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126)
(1915): 233-234; J.E. Prescott, Register of the Priory of Wetherhal,
370-371]. Thus, it would appear that William de Lancaster I was the
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred by the date of this charter, which can be
roughly dated as c. 1145-c. 1170, as it was joined by William de
Lancaster I's son and heir, William II.

If Ketel Fitz Eldred's heir was his nephew, William de Lancaster I,
then how was Gospatric Fitz Orm related to him? The answer is I don't
know for certain, but there was definitely a kinship between the two
men. The reason we can be certain of this is that when William de
Lancaster I granted Gospatric Fitz Orm the manors of Workington and
Lamplugh, he stated in his charter that the manors being granted were
"jus suum hereditatem suam" which I translate to mean that the manors
were "his [Gospatric's] right of his inheritance." If correct, one can
suppose that Gospatric Fitz Orm was the heir male to Ketel Fitz Eldred,
whereas William de Lancaster I was the heir general. By law of
succession, Ketel Fitz Eldred's lands went to his sister's son, William
de Lancaster I, but Gospatric Fitz Orm evidently had some claim as the
nearest male heir.

This means that Gospatric Fitz Orm was not the grandson of Ketel Fitz
Eldred (as stated by Keats-Rohan), although he was near related. But
how? To answer that question, it is important to note that Gospatric
Fitz Orm's father, Orm Fitz Ketel, witnessed a charter in 1094 for
Roger de Poitou, a major Lancastrian baron. As such, one would think
that Orm Fitz Ketel would have had significant landholdings in
Lancashire. So far, I've been unable to locate any such lands, however
I have found that a cetain Ketel (or Chetel) shows up owning at least
five manors in 1066, namely Bentham, Yorkshire, and Farleton, Halsall,
Wennington, and Tatham, Lancashire [Reference: VCH Lancaster 1 (1906):
272, 274, 285, 289]. It's possible that Ketel, living in 1066, is the
father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094. However, this may be
difficult to prove. I haven't traced the Yorkshire fee yet, but I find
that all of Ketel's Lancashire tracts appear to have gone to other
parties in the years following 1066 [Reference: VCH Lancaster, 3
(1907): 192; 8 (1914): 201-202, 207, 218, 231]. Regardless, Ketel,
living 1066, may also have been the original owner of Workington and
Lamplugh, Cumberland. If so, perhaps some record of him can be found
in that county.

I might further add that had Gospatric Fitz Orm been the grandson and
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred, he would have inherited the Taillebois
estates, not William de Lancaster I. One such Taillebois property
which definitely passed to William de Lancaster I was manor of
Haversham. This estate was held by Ives Taillebois, as he granted the
church there to St. Mary's, York, in the period, c. 1090-c. 1097.
Charter evidence shows that this property was subsequently in the
possession of William de Lancaster I, who granted his lands in
Haversham c. 1160-1170 in marriage with his daughter Agnes to Alexander
de Windsor [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony
of Kendale, 2 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 5) (1923): 143]. He also granted Alexander de
Windsor and his daughter, Agnes, "what he had in Morland," which estate
was earlier held by William's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred.

In conclusion, I find that Dr. Keats-Rohan has constructed a very sound
pedigree for the Taillebois-Fitz Ketel-Lancaster family. My research
proves that Ketel Fitz Eldred's heir was his nephew, Wlliam de
Lancaster I, through whom William inherited the Taillebois lands. I
differ with Keats-Rohan only in that I find that Ketel Fitz Eldred,
living 1120's, was not the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living 1094. If
anything, Orm Fitz Ketel was slightly older than Ketel Fitz Eldred.
They were, however, near related to one another.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The document, Chronicon Cumbriae, is printed in three sources, one of
them being WIlliam Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 3 (1821): 584.
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail&id=2659
The Chronicon Cumbriae document indicates Orm Fitz Ketel married
Gravelda sister of Waltheof son of Earl Gospatric, by which marriage
Gravelda had four properties. We know that all four of these propeties
passed to Orm and Gravelda's son, Gospatric Fitz Orm, which nicely
vouches for Gospatric Fitz Orm's parentage.
Elsewhere we learn that Orm Fitz Ketel witnessed a charter for Roger of
Poitou in 1094 [Reference: William Farrer, The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of
31 Henry I ... also early Lancashire Charters) (1902)]. This would
suggest that Orm was born before 1074, and possibly earlier.
Orm Fitz Ketel (husband of Gravelda) is alleged in many sources to be
the son of a certain Ketel Fitz Eldred and his wife, Christian.
However, as best I understand Dix Preston's post of information from
Keats-Rohan's work, Domesday Descendants (see copy below), Ketel Fitz
Eldred "died several years after 1120." He occurs in his charters to
St. Bees Priory with a son, William, but no son, Orm, or grandson,
Gospatric. Judging from the available records and known chronology, it
seems to me that Ketel Fitz Eldred and Orm Fitz Ketel were likely the
same age. If so, they would obviously not be father and son.
Does anyone know of any evidence which proves that Orm Fitz Ketel was
the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred? Or, is this just a supposition which has
crept into the literature? If Ketel Fitz Eldred is truly Orm's father,
he should occur in records between 1070 and 1120, yet Keats-Rohan only
mentions that he occurs AFTER 1120. Something is wrong here.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
*FILIUS ELDRED, KETEL: Son of Eldred and a daughter of Ivo Taillcbois
(q.v.), some of whose land in the barony of Kendal he inherited.
Benefactor of the abbey of St Bees, founded 1120, to which he gave land
in Morland and Workington (Register St Bees, pp. 233 -34, no. 212) with
the assent of his wife Christiana and son William. Father also of Orm,
whose son Gospatric was his eventual heir. His grant of land to St
Leonard's, York, was confirmed by his sister's son William fitz Gilbert
of Lancaster (q.v.). He died several years after 1120. G.
Washington, ?The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal',
Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological
Society 62 (1962). Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, III, pp. 548-60,
no. V.* Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page
881
butlergrt
2005-12-02 15:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Good Morning Richard et al,
I agree that Keats-Rohan and this Michael-Ann have done good work in
providing more material, but what it appears while they may be correct,
they may equally be as wrong by THEIR own evidence.
1. In the lawsuit aforementioned, where Helewise sues for the property of
Brumfel and Roheton and gives it as "step-by-step", inferred meaning
straight down the line succession of land, then that would infer that
William I Lancaster was Ketels son not nephew.
2. "Keats-Rohan's work Domesday Descendants(see copy below) Ketel fitz
Eldred"died several years after 1120" He occurs in a charter to St. Bees
Priory with a son William, But no Gospatrick."
Maybe so but what about Ketels son William, does she say he died,
disinherited, whatever? If one glosses over something to support a given
preconcieved conclusion that is as wrong as making a vanity chart! THIS
William would be then, step-by-step, in the above mentioned case.

He is then son William I Lancaster not a nephew William I Lancaster of
Ketel.
Regarding Orm alleged son or nephew of Ketel???
He could have been a 2nd son who didn't inherit anything and of course
recieved his lands from his father-in-law and grandfather Maldred who was
Lord of Allerdale. He could have een illegitimate he could have been a
step-son all of which could be interpreted. Morever, as lands given to his
son Gospatrick by William, Granted lands in Workington etc, by right of
ineritance, William as older and if Orm was dead was holding them and
possibly him as wardship.
3. The last Para. "FILIUS ELDRED,Ketel: son of Eldred and a dau. of Ivo
Taillcbois(q.v.) some of whose land in the barony of Kendal....""The
Parentage of William de Lancaster,Lord of Kendal, Transactions Cumberland
& Westmorland Antiquarian and Archeolo9gical Society 62 (1962). Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum III, pp 548-60, No.V. Source Domesday Descandants,
by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, p. 881, Eldred IS NOT EVEN DESCENDED FROM IVO, he
just married his daughter. So let us start from there: the Lancaster Line
however it goes, if the above is correct in the Charter of ST. Bee's and
surmising that Ketel was there and witnessed it, along with his son
WILLIAM, the Lancaster Line starts with just "ELDRED, NOT IVO"

I believe that Keats-Rohan, Michael-Ann ,You, Will Johnson and all the
othrs are doing wonderful work on this line that shows hows skewed history
is, as has been hither-to presented when finally digging up the relevant
facts.
It is also true that a "Ketel " appears in 1066 holding lands, it was the
manor of Holdgate in 1086 known as Stantune, that was originally a part of
the lands held by the church of Wenlock Started by Aethelred and
Aethelflaed, I often have wondered if that his how Eldred, Father of
Ketel, and this Aethelred came to be tied in? Ketel held the ancient lands
of Aethelred- his father Eldred..... BUT the manor of Holdgate consisted
of 5 estates(not 1) at 1066 held by Ketel,Genust,Alweard(Alward?),Dunning
and Aelfgifu. Brothers and sister? Ketel also held Little Pouston, part of
Almondbury before WTC, Bradley after, under Ilbert de Lacy.
Ketel shows up in a charter to the archbishop of York to the granting of
land,43 casati(?) in Patrington by King Cnut and witnessed by Ketel, Gamel
(Gamellus fitz Ketil) Chronica Monasterii de Melsa; and 2 Orms and an Ulf,
for what it is worth
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-03 19:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Good Morning Richard et al,
I agree that Keats-Rohan and this Michael-Ann have done good work in
providing more material, but what it appears while they may be correct,
they may equally be as wrong by THEIR own evidence.
1. In the lawsuit aforementioned, where Helewise sues for the property of
Brumfel and Roheton and gives it as "step-by-step", inferred meaning
straight down the line succession of land, then that would infer that
William I Lancaster was Ketels son not nephew.
This doesn't follow. Step-by-step need not imply father-to-son.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-01 19:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my previous post, I observed that Gospatric Fitz Orm's father, Orm
Fitz Ketel, and Orm's alleged father, Ketel Fitz Eldred, appeared to be
the same approximate age. I based this on the fact that Orm Fitz Ketel
was an adult in 1094, and had a wife, Gravelda, born in or before 1075,
whereas Ketel Fitz Eldred doesn't show up until in the 1120's, when he
appears with a wife, Christian, and son, William. I also observed that
Ketel Fitz Eldred's charters make no mention of his alleged son, Orm
Fitz Ketel, or his alleged grandson, Gospatric Fitz Orm. I stated my
belief that Ketel Fitz Eldred and Orm Fitz Ketel would obviously not be
father and son.

Since posting on the above chronological problem, I've had the
opportunity to study the comments made by Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan
which relate to these people in her book, Domesday Descendants. She
states that the Lancaster family claimed to be descended from Eldred,
father of Ketel Fitz Eldred, as well as Ives Taillebois. She correctly
notes that Ketel Fitz Eldred was styled "avunculus" (uncle) by William
de Lancaster I, son of Gilbert and Godith. She has constructed a very
sound pedigree which harmonizes this evidence. She identifies Ketel
Fitz Eldred as the maternal uncle of William de Lancaster I (who was
also known as William Taillebois). Ketel Fitz Eldred in turn is
identified as the son and heir of a certain Eldred and Beatrice
Taillebois, known daughter and heiress of Ives Taillebois. She
acknowledges that Ives Taillebois' lands went from Ives Taillebois to
William de Lancaster I, but does not indicate who held them in the
interim. So who then held the Taillebois properties between 1097 and
1130?

Charter evidence indicates that Ketel Fitz Eldred held the lands of his
grandfather, Ives Taillebois, which fact is indicated by Ketel's
charter to the monks of St. Mary's, York, in which he confirmed an
earlier gift of Ives Taillebois. For a transcript of Ketel Fitz
Eldred's charter to St. Mary's, York dated 1120-1130, see William
Farrer, Records relating to the Barony of Kendale, 2 (Cumberland &
Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological Society Rec. Ser. 5) (1923):
142. For a transcript of Ives Taillebois' charter to St. Mary's, York
dated 1090-1097, see William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony of
Kendale, 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 377. Curiously, Ketel confirmed the
earlier gift of his grandfather without actually naming him.

While Keats-Rohan acknowledges that William de Lancaster I was Ketel
Fitz Eldred's nephew, she provides no explanation as to how he came to
hold Ives Taillebois' lands. As it turns out, William de Lancaster I
was the heir of his uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred. This is proven by two
records: (1) a lawsuit dated 1212 with William de Lancaster I's
granddaughter and heiress, Hawise, as the plaintiff, and (2) a charter
issued by William de Lancaster I himself. In the first record, Hawise
de Lancaster, wife of Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey, identifies herself as the
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who she calls her "ancestor" and says that
her right descended from Ketel to her "from step to step" (that is,
from generation to generation). The property she is claiming is
Brumfel and Rohetun. The first of these estates is known to have
definitely belonged to Ketel Fitz Eldred, for he gave the church there
to St. Mary's, York [see James Wilson, Register of the Priory of St.
Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 233-234]. The word "ancestor" in this
time period simply meant a blood related predecessor, which term would
readily apply to a great grand-uncle.

Date: 1212. "Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey and Helewise his wife demand against
Thomas de Brumfeld 4 carucates of land in Brumfel and Rohetun, as the
right of the said Helewise and as those whereof Ketel son of Eutret,
ancestor of the said Helewise, was seised, as of fee and right, in the
time of King Henry [I], grandfather of king Henry [II], father of the
king, and from him the right of the said Helewise descended from step
to step. Thomas says that Adam his son holds the tenement; Curia Regis
R., 55, m. 6 [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony
of kendale 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 5].

In the second record, William de Lancaster I conveyed by an undated
charter the manors of Workington and Lamplugh, Cumberland to Gospatric
Fitz Orm, in exchange for the manor of Middleton, Westmorland.
Workington, Cumberland had previously belonged to Ketel Fitz Eldred,
for he gave the church in that place to St. Mary's, York [Reference:
James Wilson, Register of the Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126)
(1915): 233-234; J.E. Prescott, Register of the Priory of Wetherhal,
370-371]. Thus, it would appear that William de Lancaster I was the
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred by the date of this charter, which can be
roughly dated as c. 1145-c. 1170, as it was joined by William de
Lancaster I's son and heir, William II.

If Ketel Fitz Eldred's heir was his nephew, William de Lancaster I,
then how was Gospatric Fitz Orm related to him? The answer is I don't
know for certain, but there was definitely a kinship between the two
men. The reason we can be certain of this is that when William de
Lancaster I granted Gospatric Fitz Orm the manors of Workington and
Lamplugh, he stated in his charter that the manors being granted were
"jus suum hereditatem suam" which I translate to mean that the manors
were "his [Gospatric's] right of his inheritance." If correct, one can
suppose that Gospatric Fitz Orm was the heir male to Ketel Fitz Eldred,
whereas William de Lancaster I was the heir general. By law of
succession, Ketel Fitz Eldred's lands went to his sister's son, William
de Lancaster I, but Gospatric Fitz Orm evidently had some claim as the
nearest male heir.

This means that Gospatric Fitz Orm was not the grandson of Ketel Fitz
Eldred (as stated by Keats-Rohan), although he was near related. But
how? To answer that question, it is important to note that Gospatric
Fitz Orm's father, Orm Fitz Ketel, witnessed a charter in 1094 for
Roger de Poitou, a major Lancastrian baron. As such, one would think
that Orm Fitz Ketel would have had significant landholdings in
Lancashire. So far, I've been unable to locate any such lands, however
I have found that a cetain Ketel (or Chetel) shows up owning at least
five manors in 1066, namely Bentham, Yorkshire, and Farleton, Halsall,
Wennington, and Tatham, Lancashire [Reference: VCH Lancaster 1 (1906):
272, 274, 285, 289]. It's possible that Ketel, living in 1066, is the
father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094. However, this may be
difficult to prove. I haven't traced the Yorkshire fee yet, but I find
that all of Ketel's Lancashire tracts appear to have gone to other
parties in the years following 1066 [Reference: VCH Lancaster, 3
(1907): 192; 8 (1914): 201-202, 207, 218, 231]. Regardless, Ketel,
living 1066, may also have been the original owner of Workington and
Lamplugh, Cumberland. If so, perhaps some record of him can be found
in that county.

I might further add that had Gospatric Fitz Orm been the grandson and
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred, he would have inherited the Taillebois
estates, not William de Lancaster I. One such Taillebois property
which definitely passed to William de Lancaster I was manor of
Haversham. This estate was held by Ives Taillebois, as he granted the
church there to St. Mary's, York, in the period, c. 1090-c. 1097.
Charter evidence shows that this property was subsequently in the
possession of William de Lancaster I, who granted his lands in
Haversham c. 1160-1170 in marriage with his daughter Agnes to Alexander
de Windsor [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony
of Kendale, 2 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 5) (1923): 143]. He also granted Alexander de
Windsor and his daughter, Agnes, "what he had in Morland," which estate
was earlier held by William's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred.

In conclusion, I find that Dr. Keats-Rohan has constructed a very sound
pedigree for the Taillebois-Ketel Fitz Eldred-Lancaster family. My
research proves that Ketel Fitz Eldred's heir was his nephew, Wlliam de
Lancaster I, through whom William inherited the Taillebois lands. I
differ with Keats-Rohan only in that I find that Ketel Fitz Eldred,
living 1120's, was not the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living 1094. If
anything, Orm Fitz Ketel was slightly older than Ketel Fitz Eldred.
They were, however, near related to one another.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
The document, Chronicon Cumbriae, is printed in three sources, one of
them being WIlliam Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 3 (1821): 584.
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliographia/index.php?function=detail&id=2659
The Chronicon Cumbriae document indicates Orm Fitz Ketel married
Gravelda sister of Waltheof son of Earl Gospatric, by which marriage
Gravelda had four properties. We know that all four of these propeties
passed to Orm and Gravelda's son, Gospatric Fitz Orm, which nicely
vouches for Gospatric Fitz Orm's parentage.
Elsewhere we learn that Orm Fitz Ketel witnessed a charter for Roger of
Poitou in 1094 [Reference: William Farrer, The Lancashire Pipe Rolls of
31 Henry I ... also early Lancashire Charters) (1902)]. This would
suggest that Orm was born before 1074, and possibly earlier.
Orm Fitz Ketel (husband of Gravelda) is alleged in many sources to be
the son of a certain Ketel Fitz Eldred and his wife, Christian.
However, as best I understand Dix Preston's post of information from
Keats-Rohan's work, Domesday Descendants (see copy below), Ketel Fitz
Eldred "died several years after 1120." He occurs in his charters to
St. Bees Priory with a son, William, but no son, Orm, or grandson,
Gospatric. Judging from the available records and known chronology, it
seems to me that Ketel Fitz Eldred and Orm Fitz Ketel were likely the
same age. If so, they would obviously not be father and son.
Does anyone know of any evidence which proves that Orm Fitz Ketel was
the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred? Or, is this just a supposition which has
crept into the literature? If Ketel Fitz Eldred is truly Orm's father,
he should occur in records between 1070 and 1120, yet Keats-Rohan only
mentions that he occurs AFTER 1120. Something is wrong here.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
*FILIUS ELDRED, KETEL: Son of Eldred and a daughter of Ivo Taillcbois
(q.v.), some of whose land in the barony of Kendal he inherited.
Benefactor of the abbey of St Bees, founded 1120, to which he gave land
in Morland and Workington (Register St Bees, pp. 233 -34, no. 212) with
the assent of his wife Christiana and son William. Father also of Orm,
whose son Gospatric was his eventual heir. His grant of land to St
Leonard's, York, was confirmed by his sister's son William fitz Gilbert
of Lancaster (q.v.). He died several years after 1120. G.
Washington, ?The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal',
Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological
Society 62 (1962). Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, III, pp. 548-60,
no. V.* Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page
881
butlergrt
2005-12-01 20:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Good Afternoon Douglas,
Great sleuthing and documentation, someday hope to do as well. I would say
the one thing I would differ is that William I Lancaster gave the manor of
Heversham in honor of HIS marriage 1154-6 and was confirmed by Henry II in
the 1st year or so of his reign to Grundreda, dau. of Roger, Earl of
Wawrwick cousin to Robert, Earl of Leicester who founded the abbey in
1143. I fyou will read the last post the website to the British History
archives documents the charter. As far as Chetel, have often wondered
about this and I have read of Chetel as witness in the same time period
connected to Ranulph de Glanvill and who interestingly enough, held lands
in the area of York and was involved with Helewise de Lancaster and
William Marshall and the barony of Kendal. I will search the records.
Good Work.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-02 07:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

In my previous post, I posted an English transcript of a Curia Regis
Roll item dated 1212 in which Ketel Fitz Eldred, living 1120's, is
identified as the ancestor [Latin: "antecessor"] of Hawise (or
Helewise) de Lancaster, wife of Gilbert Fitz Renfrey. Below is the
Latin transcript of the same lawsuit as it appears in the published
Curia Regis Rolls. According to the modern index, the two properties
involved in this suit were Bromfield ["Brumfel"] and Aikton
["Echeton"], Cumberland. These properties are said to have been seised
by Ketel Fitz Eldred in the tme of King Henry I (i.e., 1100-1135).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

1. ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT.

Date: 1212. "Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey and Helewise his wife demand against
Thomas de Brumfeld 4 carucates of land in Brumfel and Rohetun, as the
right of the said Helewise and as those whereof Ketel son of Eutret,
ancestor of the said Helewise, was seised, as of fee and right, in the
time of King Henry [I], grandfather of king Henry [II], father of the
king, and from him the right of the said Helewise descended from step
to step. Thomas says that Adam his son holds the tenement; Curia Regis
R., 55, m. 6. [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the
Barony of Kendale 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian &
Archaeological Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 5].

2. LATIN TRANSCRIPT.

"Cumb'. - Gillebertus filius Renfridi et Helewisia uxor sua per
attornatum suum petunt versus Thomam de Brumfeld' quatuor carucatas
terre cum pertinenciis in Brumfel et et Echeton' ut jus ipsius Hawisie
[sic] et ut illas unde Ketel filius Eutret antecessor ipsius Helewisie
fuit seisitus ut de feodo et jure tempore Henrici regis avi regis
Henrici patris domini regis, scilicet anno et die quo obiit ; et de eo
descendit jus ipsius Helewisie de gradu in gradum: et Thomas venit et
dicit quod ipse nichil tenet de predicta terra, nec in dominico nec in
servicio, nec tenuit die qua breve inpetratum fuit, set filius ejus,
scilicet Adam, qui presens fuit et hoc congnovit: et attornati
Gilleberti et Helewisie non potuerunt hoc dedicere. Et Thomas sine
die: et ipsi querant breve versus tenentem: et Gillebertus in
misericordia." [Reference: Curia Regis Rolls, 6 (1932): 276].
F***@aol.com
2005-12-02 18:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Dear Douglas;

I hope the following will help.

In a message Douglas Richardson Dec 1, 2:19 pm writes convincingly
with documentation which supports Keats-Rohan?s reconstruction. In the
message below I offer suggestions that may assist him in completing his
story of this family.

<<Dear Newsgroup ~ In my previous post, I observed that Gospatric Fitz
Orm's father, Orm Fitz Ketel, and Orm's alleged father, Ketel Fitz
Eldred, appeared to be the same approximate age. I based this on the
fact that Orm Fitz Ketel was an adult in 1094, and had a wife,
Gravelda, born in or before 1075, whereas Ketel Fitz Eldred doesn't
show up until in the 1120's, when he appears with a wife, Christian,
and son, William. I also observed that Ketel Fitz Eldred's charters
make no mention of his alleged son, Orm Fitz Ketel, or his alleged
grandson, Gospatric Fitz Orm. I stated my belief that Ketel Fitz
Eldred and Orm Fitz Ketel would obviously not be father and son.>>

<<It's possible that Ketel, living in 1066, is the father of Orm Fitz
Ketel, living in 1094. However, this may be difficult to prove.>>

In my message ***@aol.com Nov 26, 4:50 pm I suggested a
modification to Keats-Rohan?s reconstruction. That Ketel FitzEldred
was the product of Eldred?s first marriage while his half sister was
the product of his second marriage to Beatrice de Taillebois. The
documentation for the first marriage was rejected by the newsgroup as
secondary with no original documentation. However, Todd A. Farmerie in
message Nov 27, 9:38 pm observed:

<<Dix Preston suggested an alternative that I had thought of, as a
possibility, as well. This has some things to recommend it, putting
Godith a generation after Ketel as progeny of a late second marriage,
and likewise giving William a descent from Ivo, explaining his
apparent use of the Taillebois name. However, at its heart, it too is
missing critical documentary support.>>

In any event, if Ketel was born almost a generation before his half
sister this would explain Douglas? concern whether Ketel, living in
1066, is the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094. I would suggest
that Ivo?s lands descended through his daughter Beatrice to her
daughter Goditha and to Goditha and Gilbert?s son William de Lancaster
I. Ketel as son of Eldred would have inherited Workington and surrounds
as Douglas? observes:

<<Regardless, Ketel, living 1066, may also have been the original owner
of Workington and Lamplugh, Cumberland. If so, perhaps some record of
him can be found in that county.>>

Ketel FitzEldred, son of first wife unknown, born say 1045-1050, his
son Orme FitzKetel born say 1075 which matches Gospatric I?s daughter
Gunnilda, or however her name was spelled, born before 1075. [Douglas
Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm ] Eldred m. second, Beatrice, daughter of
Ivo, [Ivo and Eldred appear to be contemporaneous] born say 1050-1055
suggests this half sister of Ketel, Goditha born say 1075-1080 who
married Gilbert of Lancaster and were parents of William who became de
Lancaster I.

This would make Orme FitzKetel, living 1066, of the same generation as
Beatrice his father?s second wife. This would make Gospatric FitzOrme,
who you date say 1110 [Douglas Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm] of the
same generation as William de Lancaster I. Thomas FitzGospatric who
you dated say 1130/5, [Douglas Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm] would be of
the same generation as William de Lancaster II. Then Patrick de Culwen
[FitzThomas], his sister Aline Fitz Thomas, born say 1160/5, living
1219, married William de Furness (or Fleming), he was of age before
1164. [Douglas Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm ] and Hawise de Lancaster
are all of the same generation.

<<In conclusion, I find that Dr. Keats-Rohan has constructed a very
sound pedigree for the Taillebois-Ketel Fitz Eldred-Lancaster family.
My research proves that Ketel Fitz Eldred's heir was his nephew, Wlliam
de Lancaster I, through whom William inherited the Taillebois lands. I
differ with Keats-Rohan only in that I find that Ketel Fitz Eldred,
living 1120's, was not the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living 1094. If
anything, Orm Fitz Ketel was slightly older than Ketel Fitz Eldred.
They were, however, near related to one another.>>

I respectfully disagree only with the conclusion < I differ with
Keats-Rohan only in that I find that Ketel Fitz Eldred, living 1120's,
was not the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living 1094.> given my scenario
above. While I have no documentation to prove my thesis, the
chronology, which I know you value, fits.

In all of Ketel?s reaffirmations of Ivo?s gifts found in Farrer there
is no statement that he was grandson of Ivo. However, his half sister
was Ivo?s daughter and apparently there was no male heir of Eldred and
Beatrice?s marriage. If this is the case, it would not be unexpected
for Ketel son of Eldred to assume the roll of ?caretaker? of his
sister?s lands until her son William, who became William de Lancaster
I, came of age thus accounting for Ketel FitzEldred?s affirming of
Ivo?s gifts.

Finally, I address your concerns:

<<I might further add that had Gospatric Fitz Orm been the grandson and
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred, he would have inherited the Taillebois
estates, not William de Lancaster I.>>

<<While Keats-Rohan acknowledges that William de Lancaster I was Ketel
Fitz Eldred's nephew, she provides no explanation as to how he came to
hold Ives Taillebois' lands.>>

<<So who then held the Taillebois properties between 1097 and 1130?>>

Farrer deals with this in his Introduction to Vol I Records of Kendale,
excerpted below, which can be found either in the book or at internet
site http://www.edenlinks.co.uk/RECORDS/FAR/INTRO.HTM

*Ivo TAILLEBOIS died about 1097. His widow, Lucy, daughter of Thorold
of Angers, or the Angevin, the first founder of Spalding abbey, married
Roger FITZ-GEROLD. From the possession of land in Westmarieland by the
Roumares, who were the descendants of Roger FITZ-GEROLD, it might be
inferred that he had an interest in Kentdale, in succession to Ivo
TAILLEBOIS. If so, no evidence of this has been discovered. It is safer
to infer that the crown resumed possession of Kentdale after the death
of Ivo and that Henry I gave the whole territory, except Warton and its
members, to Nigel de AUBIGNY, who probably received at the same time
Sedbergh, Thornton in Lonsdale, Burton in Lonsdale, Bentham, Clapham,
Austwick and Horton in Ribblesdale, besides several manors in Craven.

The next even of importance to this region was the grant by Henry I,
about the year 1114, to his nephew Stephen of Blois, of the whole honor
of Lancaster, late the possession of Roger, count of Poitou, who had
incurred forfeiture in 1102. By this grant Warton with its members,
Cartmel and Cartmel Fells, Furness and Furness Fells, came into the
possession of Stephen with all the rest of the lands in Lonsdale,
Amounderness and Twixt Ribble and Mersey that eventually comprised the
county of Lancaster.

Not one single document has survived to illustrate the tenure of
Kentdale by Nigel de AUBIGNY. He died in 1129, leaving his son, the
future Roger de MOWBRAY, a youth of 10 or 11 years, as heir to his vast
estates. In 1130 these lands were in the king's hands by reason of
wardship, but Kentdale is not mentioned in the Pipe Roll of that year,
although Burton in Lonsdale and other estates of Roger de MOWBRAY are
named therein. At that time Westmarieland was in the king's hands,
presumably by surrender of Ranulf MESCHIN in 1120, when he succeeded to
the earldom of Chester. But not all Westmarieland is accounted for in
the Pipe Roll, for the farm of the demesnes of that region was returned
as of no more than ?29 4s. yearly value, and in regard to Noutgeld we
can only say, owing to defects in the document, that ?43 was paid into
the Treasury and an undecipherable amount left owing. It is a
reasonable assumption from these figures that Kentdale was not then a
part of the crown estate of Westmarieland.

We now come to the difficult period which covered the reign of Stephen.
Fortunately we possess distinct and clear evidence that Stephen, as
king, enfeoffed a knight of the lands of Warton in Kentdale and the
wide territory of Garstang, Lancashire, to hold for the service of one
knight. This was William de LANCASTER, so on Gilbert by Godith his
wife, ( Farrer, Lancs. Pipe R., 392.) described in the Inquest of
service made in 1212 as "Willelmus filius Gilberti primus," (Book of
Fees, (P.R.O.), 206.) that is, the first to be enfeoffed of that fee.
About the same time Roger de MOWBRAY, who was of age about the year
1140, enfeoffed the same William of all the grantor's land of Lonsdale,
Kentdale and Horton in Ribblesdale, to hold by the service of four
knights. (Illustrative Documents, No. II in the Appendix.) The date of
the charter is indeterminate, but it was certainly issued during the
period 1145-1154. It did not continue effective for very long.

During the greater part of Stephen's reign, Cumberland, Westmarieland,
and probably Kentdale and Lancashire as far south as the Ribble, were
in the hands of David of Scotland. A few of his charters of
confirmation of this period relating to these regions have come down to
us in monastic chartularies. (Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, n. 198;
Lancs. Pipe R., 274-5.) Whilst under his rule all Westmarieland was
granted to Hugh de MOREVILL, whom Sir Archibald C. LAWRIE describes as
David's "life-long friend." (Early Scottish Charters, 273.) He was
constable of Scotland during the latter part of David's life. When
Henry II came to the throne, in 1154, it is certain that Westmarieland
was in Morevill's hands and with it the lordship over the greater part
of Kentdale. At that time William de LANCASTER no longer held anything
in Kentdale of Roger de MOWBRAY; but he appears to have held his lands
in Westmarieland and Kentdale of Morevill by rendering Noutgeld of ?14
6s. 3d. per annum, and some 16 carucates of land in nine vills in
Kentdale as farmer under Morevill. In 1166 William de LANCASTER I held
only 2 knight's fees, of the new feoffment of Roger de MOWBRAY in
Sedbergh, Thornton, Burton in Lonsdale, and the other places in
Yorkshire previously named, which his descendants held long after of
the fee of Mowbray by the same service. The Mowbray connexion with
Kentdale had come to an end upon the accession of Henry II, who placed
Hugh de MOREVILL in possession of Westmarieland in return, possibly,
for past services an din pursuance of the policy of planting his
favourites in regions of great strategic importance. Probably the
change of paramount lord had little, if any, effect on the position of
William de LANCASTER in Kentdale.*

Finally, Farrer concludes *After a careful review of the evidence which
has been sketched above, the author is of opinion that no barony or
reputed barony of Kentdale existed prior to the grants of 1189-90; and
that neither William de LANCASTER, son of Gilbert, nor William de
LANCASTER II, his son and successor, can be rightly described as
"baron" of Kentdale. It is certain that whilst Westmarieland was in the
hands of Hugh de MOREVILL by grant of Henry II down to Michaelmas,
1176, when it was taken into the king's hands, the Noutgeld of ?14 6s.
3d. due yearly by William de LANCASTER I and afterwards by his son,
William de LANCASTER II, was paid to Hugh de MOREVILL and received by
him as part of the issues of Westmarieland. In 1178 and 1179 the entire
Noutgeld of Westmarieland and Kentdale was ?55 19s. 3d., in which sum
was undoubtedly included ?14 6s. 3d. due from the lands of William de
LANCASTER II in Kentdale and Westmarieland. In addition to Noutgeld a
farm of ?8 18s. 2d. for the 16 carucates in Kentdale, and ?5 for the
fishery of Kentdale, were similarly paid until Michaelmas, 1176, by the
lord of Kentdale to Hugh de MOREVILL. It appears therefore improbable,
if not impossible, that Kentdale was held by barony prior to 1190. This
it was a barony after that date is proved by the following entry on the
Pipe Roll for "Lancastre" of 5 Henry III (1221):*

Nigel Barker in a message GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives; Subject: Re: Ivo and
Lucy Talybois Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998. wrote:

<<*VICTORIA HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE VOL I pp35

Notes from passage on the family of Lancaster, Barons of Kendal

[The origin of the family is obscure.]
[Small landholder within the Barony of Coupland.]
[Granted land by William Meschine when he was granted his fief by Henry
I.]

"The first recorded member is little mentioned beyond the bare fact
that his name was Gilbert and his wife's name was Godith (Lancs Fines
Rec Soc XXXIX 61). To this the monkish chroniclers have added the
fiction that he was the son of Ketel, son of Eldred, son of Ivo
Taillebois (Mon Angl iii 553 & Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem Soc (New
Series) xxxix 305), whereas he was almost, if not quite, contemporary
with Ivo, by whom
Gilbert and his predecessor was probably enffeoffed of those manors
within the Barony of Westmoreland which his descendants, the barons of
Kendal, where chief lords. (Gilbert fitz Reinford & Helewise his wife
confirmed some of Ivo's grants to the Abbey of St. Mary, York (Mon Ang
iii 566))

The connection which existed between the heirs of Ketel, son of Eldred,
namely the Curwens of Workington, and the Lancasters, of whom the
former held several manors in Cumberland and Westmoreland, was probably
of tenure rather than consanguinity. Intimately connected with this
subject is a charter, of which an ancient transcript is preserved at
Levens Hall, by which Roger de Mawbury grants to William son of Gilbert
de Lancaster,in fee and inheritance, "all my land of Lonsdale, and of
Kendal, and Horton in Ribblesdale, to hold by the service of 4 knights
(Reg of Deeds at Levens Hall f79, Lancs Pipe Reg 389). It would be
interesting to discuss the question as to whether this charter
represents an original grant or merely a confirmation of a much older
infeudation.

William son of Gilbert was the first to be enfeoffed of land in
Lancaster. In 1212 he is described as "Willelmus filiuus Gibberti
premus". He is not always described as "de Lancaster" for which it may
be inferred that he was the first of his line to be associated with the
Court and its Lords. The Mon. Chronicle to which allusion has already
been made tells us that he caused himself to be called "de Lancaster"
by the King's Licence, and to be styled before the King in Parliament
(sic) "William de Lancaster, Baron Kendal". The same Chronicle states
that he married Gundreda, formerly Countess of Warwick, whose husband,
Roger de Newburgh, died in 1153.

William de Lancaster died in or after 1170. Et seq. Nigel Barker*

Douglas, I hope the above will assist you in this matter. I am quite
convinced that Keats-Rohan?s reconstruction and your documentation
support is correct except for my suggestion that Ketel and his sister
are a generation apart which makes the chronology fit even though I
have no proof.

Respectfully,

Dix Preston
F***@aol.com
2005-12-04 00:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-04 01:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dix ~

Thank you for posting the material relative to the history of Kendal.
It's much appreciated.

I played around with some chronology tonight and came up with the
following tentative dates on the family of Eldred based on
Keats-Rohan's arrangement of this family:

1. Eldred, born say 1060, died before 1093, married (as her 1st
husband) Beatrice Taillebois, daughter and heiress of Ives Taillebois
(died c. 1093), by an unknown 1st wife. They were the parents of:

i. Godith, born say 1080, m. Gilbert. They had three sons:

a. William de Lancaster I (otherwise known as William
Taillebois), born say 1100, d. 1170. He was heir to his uncle, Ketel
Fitz Eldred.
b. Robert
c. Roger

ii. Ketel Fitz Eldred, born say 1085, living 1120's, probably died
before 1135, m. Christian. They had one son:

a. William Fitz Ketel, born say 1105. He was living in the
1120's, and died without surviving issue.

On the issue of the birthdate of William de Lancaster I, I see that
Keats-Rohan states that he first occurs in the records c. 1120. Can
anyone supply the documentation for that date?

If Ketel Fitz Eldred was born say 1085, he obviously would not be the
father of Orm Fitz Ketel, whose only known wife, Gravelda, was born in
or before 1075.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-04 01:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
ii. Ketel Fitz Eldred, born say 1085, living 1120's, probably died
If Ketel Fitz Eldred was born say 1085, he obviously would not be the
father of Orm Fitz Ketel, whose only known wife, Gravelda, was born in
or before 1075.
It usually works that way - you pick a birthdate pretty much out of the
blue, and golly, it proves the point you want to make. It's called
begging the question.

Someone alive in the 1120s could as well have been born in 1050, more
than early enough to be father of an Orm marrying Gunnilla, b. bef. 1075.

This thread is going nowhere, and not very fast either. Perhaps a
better approach would be to lay out the data, _all the data_, and see
what answer falls out, rather than picking the answer and then hammering
on the data that supports you while sweeping the rest under the carpet.

taf
F***@aol.com
2005-12-04 18:38:29 UTC
Permalink
C***@aol.com
2005-12-01 20:22:38 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/1/2005 2:08:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:
Date: 1212. "Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey and Helewise his wife demand against
Thomas de Brumfeld 4 carucates of land in Brumfel and Rohetun, as the
right of the said Helewise and as those whereof Ketel son of Eutret,
ancestor of the said Helewise, was seised, as of fee and right, in the
time of King Henry [I], grandfather of king Henry [II], father of the
king, and from him the right of the said Helewise descended from step
to step. Thomas says that Adam his son holds the tenement; Curia Regis
R., 55, m. 6 [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony
of kendale 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 5].
Dear Doug,

This merely shows what Todd and I stated at the beginning of the Gilbert
fitzReinfrid thread. This proves that Chetell [Ketel] was an ancestor of the
Lancaster family. He was the grandfather of William de Lancaster not his maternal
uncle. This was explained earlier in this thread. The scribe misunderstood
the relationship for unlike other direct relationships -nepos- had other
meanings.

MichaelAnne
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-02 07:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@aol.com
In a message dated 12/1/2005 2:08:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Date: 1212. "Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey and Helewise his wife demand against
Thomas de Brumfeld 4 carucates of land in Brumfel and Rohetun, as the
right of the said Helewise and as those whereof Ketel son of Eutret,
ancestor of the said Helewise, was seised, as of fee and right, in the
time of King Henry [I], grandfather of king Henry [II], father of the
king, and from him the right of the said Helewise descended from step
to step. Thomas says that Adam his son holds the tenement; Curia Regis
R., 55, m. 6 [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony
of kendale 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 5].
Dear Doug,
This merely shows what Todd and I stated at the beginning of the Gilbert
fitzReinfrid thread. This proves that Chetell [Ketel] was an ancestor of the
Lancaster family. He was the grandfather of William de Lancaster not his maternal
uncle. This was explained earlier in this thread. The scribe misunderstood
the relationship for unlike other direct relationships -nepos- had other
meanings.
MichaelAnne
The Latin word "antecessor" in the medieval time period simply means a
blood related predecessor. That includes a great-grand uncle. It does
not necessarily connote a direct line ancestor as we use the word
today.

Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan has it absolutely correct in her book,
Domesday Descendants. Ketel Fitz Eldred was the uncle of William de
Lancaster I. This is proven by contemporary charter evidence.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Chris Phillips
2005-12-02 09:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
The Latin word "antecessor" in the medieval time period simply means a
blood related predecessor. That includes a great-grand uncle. It does
not necessarily connote a direct line ancestor as we use the word
today.
I'd say it could be even looser than that, and could mean simply a
predecessor as the tenant of land.

Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-02 16:30:21 UTC
Permalink
As best as I know, when I have seen the word, antecessor has referred
to a blood related predecessor in title. It usually refers to a direct
line ancestor such as great-grandfather or a great-uncle. Usually when
a direct line ancestor is involved, though, they refer to them
specifically as grandfather or great-grandfather. In this case, we are
fortunate to have a separate charter in which Ketel Fitz Eldred is
called uncle by William de Lancaster.

DR
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Douglas Richardson
The Latin word "antecessor" in the medieval time period simply means a
blood related predecessor. That includes a great-grand uncle. It does
not necessarily connote a direct line ancestor as we use the word
today.
I'd say it could be even looser than that, and could mean simply a
predecessor as the tenant of land.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
2005-12-02 16:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
As best as I know, when I have seen the word, antecessor has referred
to a blood related predecessor in title. It usually refers to a direct
line ancestor such as great-grandfather or a great-uncle. Usually when
a direct line ancestor is involved, though, they refer to them
specifically as grandfather or great-grandfather. In this case, we are
fortunate to have a separate charter in which Ketel Fitz Eldred is
called uncle by William de Lancaster.
I can only say that in a case where one didn't have additional evidence, it
would be dangerous to assume a blood relationship. I've just checked several
dictionaries and word lists, and they bear out the fact that "antecessor"
could simply mean "predecessor".

Chris Phillips
J.C.B.Sharp
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.

It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.

Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).

The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.

J.C.B.Sharp
London
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-02 22:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Dear J.C.B. ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list. My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.

The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.

Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."

Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."

Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."

The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."

Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."

Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."

Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.

Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
information about his family available in print in 1902. He states:
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."

I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.

Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
butlergrt
2005-12-03 00:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Richard,
Regarding Ketel, at least the one recorded in 1066, it would appear so as
he is identified as witnessing the charter to the arcbishop by King Cnut
1033. If Ketel was say 15 in 1033 when he witnessed the charter, he would
be 51 in 1066 where he is identified as holding various property thru-out
this same area and of course by 1120 he would have been over 100. But I
believe there is a family connection. we must just find it.
Emmett
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-03 19:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Good Evening Richard,
Regarding Ketel, at least the one recorded in 1066, it would appear so as
he is identified as witnessing the charter to the arcbishop by King Cnut
1033. If Ketel was say 15 in 1033 when he witnessed the charter, he would
be 51 in 1066 where he is identified as holding various property thru-out
this same area and of course by 1120 he would have been over 100. But I
believe there is a family connection. we must just find it.
Ketel (Ketil) was one of the most common names among the Anglo-Vikings,
and you can't assume an appearance of that name in 1033 matches one in 1066.

taf
CED
2005-12-10 08:12:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.
To the Newsgroup:

Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?

CED



My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-10 08:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Living 1094? charter in 1094 of Roger, Count of Poitou? In 1094 as far as I
know it was Guillaume VII-IX 'le Jeune' Duke of Aquitaine who was count of
Poitou. In 1094 he married Philippa Mathilde de Toulouse and they are the
grandparents of Eleanor de Poitou, Duchess of Aquitaine who became first
Queen of France and then Queen of England.

----- Original Message -----
From: "CED" <***@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.
Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?
CED
My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-10 20:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Dear CED ~

Nice to see you back again.

Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.

For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
Roger le Poitevin), I might recommend you visit the following weblink:

http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.
Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?
CED
My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-10 20:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Dear J.C.B. ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

I have the 1094 charter of Count Roger of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list. My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.

The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.

Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."

Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."

Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."

The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."

Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."

Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."

Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.

Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
information about his family available in print in 1902. He states:
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."

I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.

Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-10 21:47:35 UTC
Permalink
See below

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Count Roger of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list. My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself.
-------Is it clear which Roger this is?

It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
Post by Douglas Richardson
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
-----Does this charter call Mabile/Aimable not Mabel a Countess? I
understand that in her own right she was Dame d'Alencon, and Countess of
Shropshire and Shrewsbury because of her husband,

I wonder where the Abbey of St.Martin of Sees is. Mabile and Roger SENIOR
had a son baptised there in 1056----ten years before Hastings at a time this
family was first and foremost French.

Why prayers for his brotherS when apparenly only one brother, Roger elder
brother of our Roger, had died? At least two sisters had died.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Roger SENIOR died as a monk 27 July 1094/1095 in Shrewsbury Abbey which he
had founded in 1053. his first wife Mabile/Aimable not Mabel) had died in
1082 after which _this_ Roger married Adelaide de Breteuil.

_Our_ Roger seems to have had the following children (according to ES)
Aldebert, Boson, Eudes and Ponthia------no Sibyl.

_Our_ Roger did have a sister Sibyl. She had with her first husband founded
Tewkesbury Abbey, and she died after 1140. Could this charter, quoted by
Richardson, have made a mistake? As I have queried before, _our_ Roger was
in 1094 apparently not a Count or Earl----but his father was at least an
Earl in 1094. Could the charter have applied to the father? Shortly before
his death? Or issued for him shortly after he had died?

This still does not explain why _our_ Roger is called either Count Roger de
Poitou or Roger, Count of Poitou.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-10 22:32:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo van de Pas
_Our_ Roger seems to have had the following children (according to ES)
Aldebert, Boson, Eudes and Ponthia------no Sibyl.
_Our_ Roger did have a sister Sibyl. She had with her first husband
founded Tewkesbury Abbey, and she died after 1140. Could this charter,
quoted by Richardson, have made a mistake?
Sibyl, daughter of the grantor is _another_ name added to the version
Mr. Richardson is citing, not present in the other versions of the charter.

taf
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-10 22:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
I have the 1094 charter of Count Roger of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list. My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson.
This is not what Dr. Thompson alleges at all. She concludes that the
monks, using the original charter as a guide, have fraudulently added
details to it, including both lands and signatories, in order to gain
confirmation from the crown of their posessions, including lands not
originally granted. Thus all of your remaining analysis is irrelevant -
the original charter was by Count Roger, and many of the names, were
copied from the original - dating them does nothing to validate a late
copy "embellished" (her word) with additional lands and with, among
others, the name of Orm filius Ketel not originally present.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Again, you are operating under a severe misunderstanding of her
conclusions. Perhaps you should try reading it again.

"Considerable reservations need to be expressed, then, about version
[C], and it is possible that it represents a later compilation by monks
who consciously added historical details of which they were aware. It
was not unusual in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries for institutions
which sought confirmations of their property from the king or their
overlord to put together a summary of their holdings so that the
confirmer had a clear statement of account. A founder’s charter could be
put forward for confirmation if it was felt to be adequate, but if
additional endowments had been made whose source was uncertain, then it
was easier to attribute them all to the founder and to adjust his
original act accordingly."


By the way, if her analysis is accurate, this charter would be neutral
toward dating Orm - it would not allow dating him to the 1090s, but it
cannot be used to date him in the 1130s either. The appearance of his
name (assuming "Orm ~ Ketel" was even intended to refer to Orm filius
Ketel) only means the monks thought it would be appropriate, and
neither, necessarily, that he was living at the time of the original nor
that he was active at the time of the forgery.

taf
Chris Phillips
2005-12-10 22:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
By the way, if her analysis is accurate, this charter would be neutral
toward dating Orm - it would not allow dating him to the 1090s, but it
cannot be used to date him in the 1130s either. The appearance of his
name (assuming "Orm ~ Ketel" was even intended to refer to Orm filius
Ketel) only means the monks thought it would be appropriate, and
neither, necessarily, that he was living at the time of the original nor
that he was active at the time of the forgery.
The text that has been kindly provided to several participants by J. C. B.
Sharp does suffer from some text recognition difficulties, and "Orm ~ Ketel"
puzzled me for a while.

If I understand correctly, this represents "Orm (w) Ketel", referring to a
footnote "(w) C inserts filius". That is, the version from the Livre Blanc
de Saint-Martin de Sees reads simply "Orm Ketel", while that from the
Register of Lancaster Priory [C] has "Orm filius Ketel".

Thompson comments, "Orm fitz Ketel may be a conflation of two names, Orm and
Ketel. Orm may perhaps have been suggested to the scribe who drafted [C] by
the survival of the preConquest name Orm in the family which held Kelfet
[?Kettel - CGP]: Book of Fees, I (London, 1921), l 220. A later copyist may
then have mistakenly read Orm fitz Ketel."

So it is not entirely clear whether Orm fitz Ketel even appeared in the
original version of this document. But the important thing is that, even if
he did, Thompson suggests there are "serious reservations" concerning its
genuineness.

Chris Phillips
W***@aol.com
2005-12-02 16:39:15 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/1/2005 11:52:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

The Latin word "antecessor" in the medieval time period simply means a
blood related predecessor. That includes a great-grand uncle. It does
not necessarily connote a direct line ancestor as we use the word
today.

Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan has it absolutely correct in her book,
Domesday Descendants. Ketel Fitz Eldred was the uncle of William de
Lancaster I. This is proven by contemporary charter evidence.


Except you want antecessor to be a relation on-the-side, while nepos is
specific to "uncle". The most obvious meaning to antecessor is a direct
ancestor. But maybe you have other examples to prove your opinion that antecessor
could be someone not a direct ancestor?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-02 18:11:22 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com wrote:

The most obvious meaning to antecessor is a direct
Post by W***@aol.com
ancestor.
Thanks
Will Johnson
The most obvious meaning to you in A.D. 2005, is not the same meaning
that the word had in A.D. 1212.

DR
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-03 19:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Except you want antecessor to be a relation on-the-side, while nepos is
specific to "uncle". The most obvious meaning to antecessor is a direct
ancestor. But maybe you have other examples to prove your opinion that antecessor
could be someone not a direct ancestor?
I vaguely recall an instance published in one of the Thompson-edited The
Genealogists, but I can't find it.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-12-02 17:05:03 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/2005 8:37:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

As best as I know, when I have seen the word, antecessor has referred
to a blood related predecessor in title. It usually refers to a direct
line ancestor such as great-grandfather or a great-uncle.


More statements with no proof :)
In fact not even any evidence.
Maybe you could at least quote *one* other document that uses the word
antecessor and yet for a person not in the direct line.

Will Johnson
Chris Phillips
2005-12-02 21:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
Maybe you could at least quote *one* other document that uses the word
antecessor and yet for a person not in the direct line.
One document that does this is the Domesday Book. "Antecessor" is used
throughout it for the Anglo-Saxon predecessors of the Domesday tenants, and
of course in the great majority of cases there was no blood relationship
between them.

Chris Phillips
C***@aol.com
2005-12-02 20:31:01 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/2005 12:05:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

In a message dated 12/2/2005 8:37:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

As best as I know, when I have seen the word, antecessor has referred
to a blood related predecessor in title. It usually refers to a direct
line ancestor such as great-grandfather or a great-uncle.


More statements with no proof :)
In fact not even any evidence.
Maybe you could at least quote *one* other document that uses the word
antecessor and yet for a person not in the direct line.



Dear Will,

This is the common usage of the word 'antecessor' in the cartularies of
Northern England and Scotland in the 11th-13th centuries. I have seen at least
100 charters where this formula is standard. This is a sample charter I just
picked at random:

Liber Cartarum Prioratus Sancti Andree in Scotia, E Registro Ipso in
Archivis Baronum de Panmure Hodie Asservato, edited by Thomas Thomson, Bannatyne
Club, Edinburgh, 1841:

Pages 249-250:
Carta Agnetis comitisse de Mar de erra in villa de Inverinche.
Agnes comitissa de Mar universis sancte matris ecclesie filiis salutem.
Sciant tam posteri quam moderni me dedisse et hac mea carta confirmasse Deo et
ecclesie beati Andree appli et canonicis ibidem Deo servientibus et servituris
dimidiam carucatam terre in villa de Inverinche perpetuo in elemosinam
tenendam de me et heredibus meis liberam et quietam ab omni exacione et
consuetudine et ab omni servicio quod ad me ut ad heredes meos pertineat concedo eciam
predictis canonicis ut habeant communem pasturam cum pecuniis meis ad pecunias
suas et cum pecuniis hominum meorum in tota tenura mea de Invermeth pro
salute anime mee et Morgrundi comitis sponsi mei et pro animabus antecessorum et
successorum nostrorum. Testibus Ada Comitissa, Hela Comitissa, Alexandro de
Sancto Martino, Hugone Giffard, Willelmo vicecomite de Karel.

Basically this is just a grant by Agnes, countess of Mar of 1/2 carucate of
land in the town of Inveriche to God, the church of St. Andrew and the monks
that are there serving God and the ones who will do it in the future to be
held without service. There are other provisions dealing with common pasture
and the land is given with just pertinents. The important thing to this
discussion is the line"pro salute anime mee et Morgrundi comitis sponsi mei et pro
animabus antecessorum et successorum nostrorum." This says "for the safety of
my soul and [that] of earl Morgrund my husband and for the souls of our
ancestors and successors."

This is used repeatedly in the charters and usually it does refer to direct
line ancestors. There are cases where this has been used to describe other
family members. A famous case in point here is the charter from the refoundation
of Spalding Abbey by Ivo Taillebois and his wife Lucy where the following is
stated"antecessorum suorum Turoldi scilicet uxorisque eius regine" which was
a statement made in the [re]foundation charter for the safety of the souls
of Ivo Taillebois, his wife Lucy and her ancestors Turold and his wife.
Katherine S.B. Keats-Rohan has made an entire case of this and a few other
statements to show the ancestry of Lucy. Keats-Rohan makes the following statement
which is the best explanation of the term 'antecessor' I have seen so far,
"The apparently vague Latin words antecessor and predecessor can both be used to
mean something like 'predecessor'. Each of them conveys a range of very
precise meanings in different circumstances."

She is correct that in each case the meaning depends on the nature of the
document it is used in. In the case we are referring to the Curia regis roll
of 1212, the term is used in the context "et de eo descendit jus ipsius
Helewisie de gradu in gradum" so it descended to her "step in step". This implies
as Chetell is cited as "Ketel filius Eutret antecessor ipsius Helewisie"
that he was a direct line ancestor. The land passed into each succeeding
generation to her. Each use of the term 'antecessor' depends on the connotation of
the charter.

Chetell is shown in possession of the land in the suit of 1212 in the
following charter:

The Register of the Priory of St. Bees, Surtees Society Publications, No.
126, Andrews & Co., Durham, 1915:

Pages 233-234:
212. Carta Chetelli Filii Eldred de Ecclesiis et Pertinenciis de Morlund,
Brounfeld, et Wirkington.
Chetellus filius Eldred, omnibus videntibus vel audientibus litteras has tam
presentibus quam futuris, salutem. Notum sit me dedisse et hac presenti
carta mea confirmasse. Deo et ecclesie Sancte Marie Eboraci et monachis ibidem
servientibus consillio et assensu uxoris mee, Cristiane, et Willelmi filii mei
et ceterorum amicorum meorum, ecclesiam de Morlund, cum duabus partibus
ejusdem ville et cum uno molendino in eadem villa et cum ceteris pertinenciis
suis, et ecclesiam de Brounefeld, cum copore ejusdem manerii et cum ceteris
pertinenciis suis, et ecclesiam de Wirkynton et duas carrucatas terre et unum
molendinum in eadem villa et omnia alia que ad eam pertinent, in puram et
perpetuam elemosinam, liberam et quietam ab omni terreno servicio et seculari
exaccione, pro anima mea et pro animabus omnium parentum meorum et pro animabus
omnium fidelium defunctorum. Qua propter concedo et confirmo hec omnia prefata
usibus predictorum monachorum inperpetuum profutura. Hiis testibus Cristiana
uxore mea, Willelmo filio meo, Archil senescaldo, Yvone filio Forni, Roberto
capellano, Rogero filio Walteri, et multis aliis.

Chetell also held the land in Workington as is shown in the following from
St. Bee's Register:

Pages 32-33:
4. Carta Ranulfi Meschyn filii Willemi de Qirkyngton, Molendino, etc.
Ranulfus Meschinus filius Willelmi Meschin omnibus fidelibus, tam clericis
quam laicis, litteras has videntibus vel audientibus, salutem. Sciatis me
dedisse et concessisse Deo et Sanctae Marie Ebor[aci] et Sanctae Bege pro salute
mea et pro anima patris mei et fratris et parentum meorum quicquid Chetellus
filius Heltredi dedit in Wirchintuna, scilicet, ecclesiam ejusdem ville et
molendinum in eadem villa et terram ejusdem ville quantum ipsi divisit et
dedit. Hanc concessionem et donacionem fecit idem R[anulfus] in die assumcionis
sanctae Marie coram istis testibus, Odardo capellano suo, Fulcone avunculo
ejus, Rannulfo de Suait, Willelmo de Archis, Philippo filio Clerembeldi, Gaufrido
presbitero, Willelmo Borgando, Willelmo filio Chening, Godardo dapifero.

The 'fratris' above is probably a scribal error for 'matris' and Prescott
makes note of this in his description of the charter. St. Bee's was originally
founded as a cell of St. Mary's, York which is why you see these parishes
connected in so many of these charters.

The confusion comes in as people have been trying to attach Beatrix
Taillebois as the mother of Chetell which has no proof in the documentation.

Ivo Taillebois held the land in Kendal. It belonged to Chetell in the time
of Henry I as is shown in Cal. of Charter Rolls, ii, 442. Nothing else is
stated. It has been shown earlier in the Gilbert fitzReinfrid thread that
Beatrix Taillebois could not have been the mother of Chetell. In fact because she
was married before 1093 to Ribald of Middleham [supposedly her second
husband] and her eldest son wasn't born until probably several years later at the
earliest [Ralph Taillebois was still alive in 1167/8 and his son is not
recorded as holding Middleham until 1177] it is possible that Beatrix was actually a
child when she married Ribald. If this is the case then it is impossible
that she had a prior husband. Clay originally presented the idea that Beatrix
was illegitimate as her sons by Ribald of Middleham did not come into the
land in Kendal and other holdings of Ivo Taillebois. This is a possibility as
in the case of no legitimate offspring the land would have reverted to the
crown where it was free for Henry I to distribute as he saw fit. The entire
case on the supposed marriage of Eldred and Beatrix Taillebois lies in the land
held by Chetell.

Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-03 00:02:14 UTC
Permalink
My comments are interspersed below. DR

***@aol.com wrote:
Keats-Rohan makes the following statement
Post by C***@aol.com
which is the best explanation of the term 'antecessor' I have seen so far,
"The apparently vague Latin words antecessor and predecessor can both be used to
mean something like 'predecessor'. Each of them conveys a range of very
precise meanings in different circumstances."
I agree with Keats-Rohan. It depends on the circumstance. The word
was used in early charters in a generic form in such a way to give the
impression that it meant predecessor, be it by blood or otherwise.
When referring to specific individuals, however, it usually refers to a
blood related predecessor, but not always. If blood related, an
"antecessor" does not have to be a direct line ancestor.
Post by C***@aol.com
She is correct that in each case the meaning depends on the nature of the
document it is used in. In the case we are referring to the Curia regis roll
of 1212, the term is used in the context "et de eo descendit jus ipsius
Helewisie de gradu in gradum" so it descended to her "step in step". This implies
as Chetell is cited as "Ketel filius Eutret antecessor ipsius Helewisie"
that he was a direct line ancestor. The land passed into each succeeding
generation to her. Each use of the term 'antecessor' depends on the connotation of
the charter.
In this case, I would translate the word "antecessor" to be a blood
related predecessor, as Hawise states that her right ["jus"] descended
to her from step to step, implying a family tie over several
generations. A blood related predecessor would include a great-grand
uncle. You can inherit from great grand uncle "step to step," just as
easily as you can from a direct line ancestor.

DR
Post by C***@aol.com
Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
C***@aol.com
2005-12-02 20:36:59 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/2005 3:31:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

"antecessorum suorum Turoldi scilicet uxorisque eius regine" which was
a statement made in the [re]foundation charter for the safety of the souls
of Ivo Taillebois, his wife Lucy and her ancestors Turold and his wife.



This is confusing. The quoted passage refers to her [Lucy's] ancestors
Turold and his wife.
The initial part of the passage stating for the soul of Ivo Taillebois and
Lucy his wife is not shown.

MichaelAnne
C***@aol.com
2005-12-02 20:49:01 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/2005 3:31:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

Testibus Ada Comitissa, Hela Comitissa, Alexandro de
Sancto Martino, Hugone Giffard, Willelmo vicecomite de Karel.

Basically this is just a grant by Agnes, countess of Mar

Before someone brings it up this is a conformation charter of an earlier
grant by Morgrund, earl of Mar. The witnesses for those who wish to identify
them are: Ada de Warenne [mother of William the Lion, Malcolm IV "the Maiden"
and David earl of Huntingdon etc.], Ela de Warenne [according to G.W.S. Barrow
her niece and wife of Duncan, earl of Fife], Alexander St. Martin [a tenant
of Countess Ada and he was often a witness for her charters], Hugh Giffard [
Hugh Giffard of Yester died ca. 1190.], William sheriff of Karel [Carlisle?].

MichaelAnne
W***@aol.com
2005-12-02 23:11:37 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 1:08:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by W***@aol.com
Maybe you could at least quote *one* other document that uses the word
antecessor and yet for a person not in the direct line.
One document that does this is the Domesday Book. "Antecessor" is used
throughout it for the Anglo-Saxon predecessors of the Domesday tenants, and
of course in the great majority of cases there was no blood relationship
between them.

Chris Phillips >>

Thanks Chris, so here you're saying it could simply refer to the previous
*holder*
So that would imply that when we see this term, in this period, we cannot say
anything about it at all, other than the person so-referred held the property
or office or ability previously.
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-12-02 23:14:31 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 2:39:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. ....
<snip>

Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." >>


However Douglas, this ONE copy reviewed by Farrar in 1902 is now superceded
by an analysis of *all* the charters gathered by "... Kathleen Thompson has
collated all of the extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094
(Monasteries and Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire, CXL,
201-225"

Would you not agree? That a gathering together of all the copies and
analysis of this in-context, would supercede the analysis of one ?

Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-02 23:42:18 UTC
Permalink
It depends on Ms. Thompson's evidence, Will. Mr. Farrer's statements
are very compelling.

DR
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/05 2:39:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. ....
<snip>
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." >>
However Douglas, this ONE copy reviewed by Farrar in 1902 is now superceded
by an analysis of *all* the charters gathered by "... Kathleen Thompson has
collated all of the extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094
(Monasteries and Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire, CXL,
201-225"
Would you not agree? That a gathering together of all the copies and
analysis of this in-context, would supercede the analysis of one ?
Will Johnson
J***@aol.com
2005-12-02 23:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Dear Michael Anne,
I am curious as to the date of Countess Agnes
of Mar`s charter. Earl Duncan I of Fife is said to have married Hela and
their son Earl Duncan II is also said to have married Hela (Ela). If Ada, Countess
of Huntingdon had a sister (as opposed to neice) Ela who was Countess of
Fife, might Agnes , Countess of Mar also been a sister to them ? or is this too
crazy for words ?
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 00:08:31 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/1/05 11:08:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< These properties are said to have been seised
by Ketel Fitz Eldred in the tme of King Henry I (i.e., 1100-1135). >>

What is the source that says he seized them? instead of that he "was seized
of" them?
Thanks
Will Johnson
C***@aol.com
2005-12-03 00:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Dear James,

To answer your question the charter dates before 1178 when Countess Ada
died. The Fife portion of the line goes:

Duncan, earl of Fife died ca. 1154. He was acting regent for Malcolm IV on
David I's death in 1153 and traveled throughout the kingdom with Malcolm before
his grandfather David died.
His wife is unknown. He had a son:

Duncan, earl of Fife died aft. July 1203. He married ca. 1163 Ela de
Warenne, niece of Ada de Warenne, possibly the daughter of Ada's brother Reginald de
Warenne. Duncan was succeeded by his son:

Malcolm, earl of Fife who married Matilda de Strathern. Malcolm died sp and
was succeeded by his nephew Malcolm son of his brother Duncan.

I hope this helps.

MichaelAnne
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 00:44:52 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 10:38:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< William de Lancaster died in or after 1170. Et seq. Nigel Barker* >>

Aha! "In or after"! So I find confirmation that the "William II" described
in a charter dated 1170-80 may be actually William I
butlergrt
2005-12-03 02:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Will et al,
I am not sure if this helps but, Willam de Lancastre I shortly before his
death "nfeoffed...Duble of 20 a. in Helsington, worth 20s., John de Waleys
of 22 a. worth 22s. and Philip de mara of 12a. worth 6s" Lanc. Inq.,
I,167.
I do not know the actual date or have access yet to this Inquisition but
if someone does it was apparently right before his death and as I
interpret it,we are talking months not years.
Best Regards,
Emmett
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 01:02:23 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 12:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, ClaudiusI0
writes:

<< Curia regis roll of 1212, the term is used in the context "et de eo
descendit jus ipsius Helewisie de gradu in gradum" so it descended to her "step
in step". This implies as Chetell is cited as "Ketel filius Eutret antecessor
ipsius Helewisie" that he was a direct line ancestor. >>

I don't understand the exact manner in which Helewise was a descendent of
Ketel "son of Eutret" [Eldred?]
I am not showing that connection currently.

I *am* showing that her grandmother was named Beatrix who married Robert de
Stuteville and then had another Robert, Sheriff of Yorkshire, but perhaps this
is all messed up. It does seem possible this grandmother might either be the
same person as the one who married Ivo, or maybe her daughter. I'm not sure
what the *standard* reconstruction would be for why Helewise claims Ketel as
ancestor.

Will
butlergrt
2005-12-03 03:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Will again and All,
You will not like this I am afraid. the descent goes thusly:
Eldred
Ketel
William I
William II
son:
Gilbert
son:
Warin*
dau.
Helewise mar. Gilbert fitzReinifrid son of Roger

*Warin also had a son Henry known as Henry fitzWarin that originally held
his fathers lands including Liverpool, but King John took Liverpool August
1207 and made it a Borough 5 days later and gave Henry fitzWarin the manor
of English tea instead. Why Warin and Hnery did not succed in succession
yet alone Gilbert is not known but history records it went to his daughter
Helwise and Gilbert fitzReinfrid and then his son William the last of this
line of Lancasters as he had only 2 daughters and then Lancaster became a
royal line.
Best
Emmett
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 01:11:17 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 12:49:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< Before someone brings it up this is a conformation charter of an earlier
grant by Morgrund, earl of Mar. The witnesses for those who wish to identify

them are: Ada de Warenne [mother of William the Lion, Malcolm IV "the
Maiden"
and David earl of Huntingdon etc.], Ela de Warenne [according to G.W.S.
Barrow
her niece and wife of Duncan, earl of Fife], Alexander St. Martin [a tenant
of Countess Ada and he was often a witness for her charters], Hugh Giffard
[
Hugh Giffard of Yester died ca. 1190.], William sheriff of Karel
[Carlisle?]. >>

Ada de Warenne died 1178

Is this Ela supposed to be the wife of Duncan, 6th Earl of Fife who was the
father of Ada who m Roger de Merlay ?

Would this grant by Agnes mean she is here a widow? Can this document be
dated?

Thanks
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 01:18:46 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 2:39:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees. >>

Because she did not say that Roger was confirming.
She said that Orm was confirming.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-03 01:43:45 UTC
Permalink
According to Farrer, Orm Fitz Ketel witnessed the charter of Roger,
Count of Poitou, in 1094. He did not confirm it.

DR
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/05 2:39:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees. >>
Because she did not say that Roger was confirming.
She said that Orm was confirming.
Will Johnson
C***@aol.com
2005-12-03 01:41:38 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/2005 8:11:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

Ada de Warenne died 1178

Is this Ela supposed to be the wife of Duncan, 6th Earl of Fife who was the
father of Ada who m Roger de Merlay ?

Would this grant by Agnes mean she is here a widow? Can this document be
dated?

Thanks
Will Johnson



Dear Will,

Yes, Ada who married Roger de Merley was the daughter of this couple. Agnes
is a widow as she confirms this grant of her husband. Ada de Warenne died in
1178. Hugh of Yester died ca. 1190 which doesn't help. Alexander de St.
Martin died ca. 1189 and Ela de Warenne married Duncan, earl of Fife by 1163 so
the charter should be dated between 1163-1178. That is the best I can do with
this one.

MichaelAnne
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 01:52:57 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 4:13:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< Malcolm, earl of Fife who married Matilda de Strathern. Malcolm died sp
and
was succeeded by his nephew Malcolm son of his brother Duncan. >>

This Malcolm, is he not the one said to have married Marguerite de Tosny who
survived him and died aft Jan 1246?
C***@aol.com
2005-12-03 01:55:29 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/2005 8:02:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

don't understand the exact manner in which Helewise was a descendent of
Ketel "son of Eutret" [Eldred?]
I am not showing that connection currently.

I *am* showing that her grandmother was named Beatrix who married Robert de
Stuteville and then had another Robert, Sheriff of Yorkshire, but perhaps
this
is all messed up. It does seem possible this grandmother might either be
the
same person as the one who married Ivo, or maybe her daughter. I'm not sure
what the *standard* reconstruction would be for why Helewise claims Ketel as

ancestor.

Will




Dear Will,

Rosie Bevan is the Stuteville expert not me. Rosie has some tremendous posts
in the archives which will straighten out the line much better than I can.
Helewise was the daughter of William de Lancaster by his wife Helewise de
Stuteville.

Helewise was the daughter of Robert de Stuteville [died 1183] by his wife
Helewise. This is from Rosie's prior posting:

ROBERT III de Stuteville of Cottingham, Kettleby Thorpe, Yorks. and Bigby,
Lincs. In 1138 he fought at the Battle of the Standard. Instigated claims to
recover property confiscated from his grandfather in 1147 and was granted 10
knights' fees by Nigel de Mowbray which included the manor of Kirkby
Moorside and land in Warwickshire shortly after 1154. Supervisor of the
works of Bamburgh castle in 1166 and sheriff of Yorkshire from Easter 1170
to Michaelmas 1175. Benefactor to the abbeys of St Mary's York, Byland,
Rievaulx and Meaux and the priory of Durham. A charter of confirmation to
Rievaulx abbey c.1160-1183 for the health of his soul and the souls of
Robert de Stuteville his grandfather, Robert his father, Erneburga his
mother and Helewise his wife, and with the consent of his son William,
presents the Stuteville family over four generations. ["Robertus de
Stutevilla.sciatis me dedissee et confirmasse Deo et Ecclesiae S. Mariae
Rievallis, pro salute animae meae, et Roberti de Stutevilla, avi mei, et
Roberti, patris m mei, et Erneburge, matris meae, et Helewisae uxoris
meae, . in perpetuam elemosinam, concessu Willelmi filii mei, et aliorum
filiorum meorum, totam terram de Houetona." J.C.Atkinson (ed.), 'Rievaulx
Cartulary', p.80]. He married, before 1145, Helewise whose parentage is not
known and they founded Keldholm priory, a Benedictine nunnery. As 'domina
Helewis uxor Roberti de Stuteuilla' with Osmund 'filius ejus' she witnessed
a charter of William de Vescy to the brethren of Farne Island in about 1183.
Robert had an interest in Cowesby as shown by a charter of notification
dated around 1164-74, by Roger archbishop of York of the settlement of the
controversy between Hugh bishop of Durham and Robert de Stuteville relating
to the chapel of Cowesby. The dispute continued, however, after his death
under the aegis of his son Osmund. Robert died in 1183.

His daughter Helewise:

-Helewise. Married (1) William II de Lancaster, lord of Kendal d.1184 by
whom she had Helewise (2) Hugh de Moreville of Burgh, Cumberland d. 1202 by
whom she had Ada and Joan (3) William son of Ranulf, lord of Greystoke
d.1209 by whom she had Thomas. In 1209 Robert de Vipont owed 500 marks for
and 5 palfreys for the custody of the land and heirs of William and the
marriage of his widow. Helewise died after 1228.
[Sources: Keats-Rohan, 'Domesday Descendants'. p.724 ; Clay, 'Early
Yorkshire Charters' v.8, p.5-15, 90, 95 ; Sanders, 'English Baronies: a
study of their origin and descent 1086-1327', p.37]

The descent from Ketel is through the Lancaster line. William II de
Lancaster was the grandson of Sir Gilbert de Lancaster that married Godith. Chetell
is the father of Gilbert de Lancaster [ my proofs] and DR believes [as does
Katherine S.B. Keats-Rohan] that Godith was the sister of Chetell.

I hope this helps.

MichaelAnne
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2005-12-03 12:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/2005 8:02:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Post by C***@aol.com
don't understand the exact manner in which Helewise was a descendent
of Ketel "son of Eutret" [Eldred?] I am not showing that connection
currently.
I *am* showing that her grandmother was named Beatrix who married
Robert de Stuteville and then had another Robert, Sheriff of
Yorkshire, but perhaps this is all messed up. It does seem possible
this grandmother might either be the same person as the one who
married Ivo, or maybe her daughter. I'm not sure what the
*standard* reconstruction would be for why Helewise claims Ketel as
ancestor.
Will
Dear Will,
Rosie Bevan is the Stuteville expert not me. Rosie has some
tremendous posts in the archives which will straighten out the line
much better than I can. Helewise was the daughter of William de
Lancaster by his wife Helewise de Stuteville.
Helewise was the daughter of Robert de Stuteville [died 1183] by his
ROBERT III de Stuteville of Cottingham, Kettleby Thorpe, Yorks. and
Bigby, Lincs. In 1138 he fought at the Battle of the Standard.
Instigated claims to recover property confiscated from his
grandfather in 1147 and was granted 10 knights' fees by Nigel de
Mowbray which included the manor of Kirkby Moorside and land in
Warwickshire shortly after 1154. Supervisor of the works of Bamburgh
castle in 1166 and sheriff of Yorkshire from Easter 1170 to
Michaelmas 1175. Benefactor to the abbeys of St Mary's York, Byland,
Rievaulx and Meaux and the priory of Durham. A charter of
confirmation to Rievaulx abbey c.1160-1183 for the health of his soul
and the souls of Robert de Stuteville his grandfather, Robert his
father, Erneburga his mother and Helewise his wife, and with the
consent of his son William, presents the Stuteville family over four
generations. ["Robertus de Stutevilla.sciatis me dedissee et
confirmasse Deo et Ecclesiae S. Mariae Rievallis, pro salute animae
meae, et Roberti de Stutevilla, avi mei, et Roberti, patris m mei,
et Erneburge, matris meae, et Helewisae uxoris meae, . in perpetuam
elemosinam, concessu Willelmi filii mei, et aliorum filiorum meorum,
totam terram de Houetona." J.C.Atkinson (ed.), 'Rievaulx Cartulary',
p.80]. He married, before 1145, Helewise whose parentage is not
known and they founded Keldholm priory, a Benedictine nunnery. As
'domina Helewis uxor Roberti de Stuteuilla' with Osmund 'filius
ejus' she witnessed a charter of William de Vescy to the brethren of
Farne Island in about 1183. Robert had an interest in Cowesby as
shown by a charter of notification dated around 1164-74, by Roger
archbishop of York of the settlement of the controversy between Hugh
bishop of Durham and Robert de Stuteville relating to the chapel of
Cowesby. The dispute continued, however, after his death under the
aegis of his son Osmund. Robert died in 1183.
-Helewise. Married (1) William II de Lancaster, lord of Kendal d.1184
by whom she had Helewise (2) Hugh de Moreville of Burgh, Cumberland
d. 1202 by whom she had Ada and Joan (3) William son of Ranulf, lord
of Greystoke d.1209 by whom she had Thomas. In 1209 Robert de Vipont
owed 500 marks for and 5 palfreys for the custody of the land and
heirs of William and the marriage of his widow. Helewise died after
1228. [Sources: Keats-Rohan, 'Domesday Descendants'. p.724 ; Clay,
'Early Yorkshire Charters' v.8, p.5-15, 90, 95 ;
Recte: Vol 9 (the lacuna is in her original note).
Post by C***@aol.com
Sanders, 'English Baronies: a
study of their origin and descent 1086-1327', p.37]
The descent from Ketel is through the Lancaster line. William II de
Lancaster was the grandson of Sir Gilbert de Lancaster that married
Godith. Chetell is the father of Gilbert de Lancaster [ my proofs]
and DR believes [as does Katherine S.B. Keats-Rohan] that Godith
was the sister of Chetell.
I hope this helps.
MichaelAnne
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 02:04:42 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 5:52:57 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< According to Farrer, Orm Fitz Ketel witnessed the charter of Roger,
Count of Poitou, in 1094. He did not confirm it. >>

Then Kathleen is saying Farrer is wrong.
And she has the benefit of having all the copies in front of her, not just
one.
C***@aol.com
2005-12-03 02:05:18 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/2005 8:53:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

This Malcolm, is he not the one said to have married Marguerite de Tosny who

survived him and died aft Jan 1246?



Dear Will,

CP 5:309 states that Malcolm died in 1266. His wife was debated a while back
on the newsgroup. He is alleged to have married Elen daughter of Llywelyn
Fawr. He was succeeded by his son Colban, earl of Fife.

MichaelAnne
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 02:21:03 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 6:05:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, ClaudiusI0
writes:

<< CP 5:309 states that Malcolm died in 1266. His wife was debated a while
back on the newsgroup. He is alleged to have married Elen daughter of Llywelyn
Fawr. He was succeeded by his son Colban, earl of Fife.

MichaelAnne >>

I'm confused. Malcolm, Earl of Fife who d 1266 I have married to Ellen sure.
However his parents are Duncan MacDuff and Alice Corbet

Then Malcolm, Earl of Fife who d 1229/30 s.p. is the one who married
Marguerite de Tosny
His parents being Duncan, Earl of Fife who d aft Jul 1203 and Ela de Warenne

Right? Wrong? I can't just merge these two, one is the uncle of the other as
I now have it.

Will
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 02:24:09 UTC
Permalink
--part1_62.623f8c3b.30c25bb6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Douglas asked what Kathleen's evidence was, so I'm forwarding the original
message sent by J.C.B.Sharp
London. Douglas must have not read this one.

In a message dated 12/2/05 12:07:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@obtfc.win-uk.net writes:

<< In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130. >>

So we see the evidence is "ALLof the extant versions of the charter dated by
Farrer...." [empasis added]
Pretty compelling and convincing. Whereas Farrer cited one copy.

Will Johnson


--part1_62.623f8c3b.30c25bb6_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-***@rootsweb.com>
Received: from rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (rly-yd01.mail.aol.com [172.18.141.65]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v107.13) with ESMTP id MAILINYD33-1f24390a9933e; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:07:52 -0500
Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists7.rootsweb.com [66.43.18.39]) by rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (v107.13) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYD18-1f24390a9933e; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:07:50 -0500
Received: (from ***@localhost)
by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) id jB2K7bHi026121;
Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:07:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:07:37 -0700
X-Original-Sender: ***@newsarch.rootsweb.com Fri Dec 2 13:07:37 2005
From: ***@obtfc.win-uk.net (J.C.B.Sharp)
X-Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <***@obtfc.compulink.co.uk>
References: <***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: ***@obtfc.win-uk.net
X-Complaints-To: ***@demon.net
Old-To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.16.34
Resent-Message-ID: <***@lists2.rootsweb.com>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Resent-From: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
X-Mailing-List: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/77783
X-Loop: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L-***@rootsweb.com
X-AOL-IP: 66.43.18.39
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.

It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.

Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).

The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.

J.C.B.Sharp
London


--part1_62.623f8c3b.30c25bb6_boundary--
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-03 09:49:22 UTC
Permalink
J.C.B. Sharp kindly provided a synopsis of Ms. Thompson's argument. We
want to see the evidence now.

DR
Post by W***@aol.com
--part1_62.623f8c3b.30c25bb6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Douglas asked what Kathleen's evidence was, so I'm forwarding the original
message sent by J.C.B.Sharp
London. Douglas must have not read this one.
In a message dated 12/2/05 12:07:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130. >>
So we see the evidence is "ALLof the extant versions of the charter dated by
Farrer...." [empasis added]
Pretty compelling and convincing. Whereas Farrer cited one copy.
Will Johnson
--part1_62.623f8c3b.30c25bb6_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (rly-yd01.mail.aol.com [172.18.141.65]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v107.13) with ESMTP id MAILINYD33-1f24390a9933e; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:07:52 -0500
Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists7.rootsweb.com [66.43.18.39]) by rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (v107.13) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYD18-1f24390a9933e; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:07:50 -0500
by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) id jB2K7bHi026121;
Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:07:37 -0700
Resent-Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:07:37 -0700
X-Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Lines: 26
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.16.34
Precedence: list
X-AOL-IP: 66.43.18.39
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins, Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
--part1_62.623f8c3b.30c25bb6_boundary--
J***@aol.com
2005-12-03 02:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will,
I think Malcolm I, Earl of Fife married 1 ) Matilda of
Strathhearn and 2) Margaret de Tosny / Tonei. dsp 1228
His nephew Earl Malcolm II of Fife married Helen alleged
daughter of Llewelyn Fawr, Prince of Wales
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maoine USA
Terry
2005-12-03 17:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Could you tell us who the parents of Margaret where?
Thanks
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Post by C***@aol.com
Dear Will,
I think Malcolm I, Earl of Fife married 1 ) Matilda of
Strathhearn and 2) Margaret de Tosny / Tonei. dsp 1228
His nephew Earl Malcolm II of Fife married Helen alleged
daughter of Llewelyn Fawr, Prince of Wales
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maoine USA
W***@aol.com
2005-12-03 04:15:43 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/2/05 7:53:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< Eldred
Ketel
William I
William II
son:
Gilbert
son:
Warin*
dau.
Helewise mar. Gilbert fitzReinifrid son of Roger

*Warin also had a son Henry known as Henry fitzWarin that originally held
his fathers lands including Liverpool, but King John took Liverpool August
1207 and made it a Borough 5 days later and gave Henry fitzWarin the manor
of English tea instead. Why Warin and Hnery did not succed in succession
yet alone Gilbert is not known but history records it went to his daughter
Helwise and Gilbert fitzReinfrid and then his son William the last of this
line of Lancasters as he had only 2 daughters and then Lancaster became a
royal line. >>

Because Gilbert was not his son but his brother.
We have already seen how Willliam I de Lancaster had a brother Jordan and a
brother Gilbert
Could "Warin" be the same name as "Jordan" ?
At any rate, I questioned that William II also had sons Gilbert and Jordan,
pointing out that we do not know exactly when William I died "in or after 1170"
is pretty vauge. With a document dated 1170-80 there is plenty of room for
the older William to still be living and these "sons" be his, not his son's
sons.

At any rate, allow Gilbert to be younger son of William I and your problem
above vanishes. He didn't inherit because he wasn't in the direct line.
Instead Hawise the daughter of William II inherited her father's lands.

Will
J***@aol.com
2005-12-03 22:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Dear Terry,
Margaret or Marguerite de Tosny, 2nd wife of Malcolm I,
Earl of Fife is given on Leo van de Pas` Genealogics website as a daughter of
Roger IV de Conches and Constance de Beaumont.
One interesting detail about the charter of Agnes, Countess of
Mar is that it conclusively proves that either the date normally given for
Earl Morgand of Mar`s death (1183) or that given for Ada, Countess of Huntingdon
(1178) is in error, as the dead do not witness charters. All things considered
it is doubtful that it was given long after the Earl`s decease as the next
Earl of Mar, Gilchrist was of a rival lineage and as Countess Agnes were still
in mourning for her lord when She gave the charter it makes sense to me that
two of the principal witnesses should be fellow Countesses rather than Earls and
that the said Countesses were close relatives of hers.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
W***@aol.com
2005-12-04 00:05:49 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/3/2005 2:03:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by J***@aol.com
it conclusively proves that either the date normally given for
Earl Morgand of Mar`s death (1183) or that given for Ada, Countess of
Huntingdon
(1178) is in error, as the dead do not witness charters.
No I don't see this. The death date for Morgand is not 1183, but rather BEF
1183 ...
If Ada died IN 1178 and she is a widow here, then the document dates not
later than 1178 and we can revise Morgand's death date backward to that year.

Will Johnson
C***@aol.com
2005-12-04 02:39:45 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/3/2005 9:08:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Post by butlergrt
Good Evening Douglas et al,
1. In reference to a duel between Gospatric fitzOrm and His cousin William
where William was fined 30 marks,(1076?) that is an English translation,
it would be piperoll 22 Henry II Westmoreland for the original.
Dear Emmett,

I also would like to see the full translation of the text you are using. I
pulled the Pipe Roll for 22 Henry II [ The Publications of the Pipe Roll
Society, Vol. XXV, 1904] and on Page 121 there is the following entry which I
assume to be the original of what you are speaking of:

Willelmus filius Willelmi debet xxx m. ut habeat duellum versus Gospatricium
filium Orm.

There is no relationship specified between these men so I don't see how
there could be in an English translation.

Thanks.

MichaelAnne
W***@aol.com
2005-12-04 18:00:36 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/4/2005 12:23:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Douglas Richardson
I specifically stated I disagreed with Keats-Rohan regarding Ketel Fitz
Eldred being the father of Orm Fitz Ketel. I showed such a
relationship was impossible chronologically.
You didn't show it. You tried to show it. But since it's all balancing on
the point of a single charter, it's going to be a hard proof.
W***@aol.com
2005-12-04 20:00:35 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:08:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by butlergrt
The duel between William and Gospatric was a secondary source, and, as
opposed to filius, they used the term William fitzWilliam
Emmett what is being asked is that you name the source specifically, for
example
"The land of Kendall", by J Hooper Maxwell, 1984, Cray Publishers ...
and then also QUOTE the exact wording for example
"... the abbot of Duncan in his journal stated that William FitzWilliam
fought with Gospatric and slew him...."

THIS is just an example. I made all of this up in order to demonstrate the
exact question that is being asked of Emmett. Any resemblance of the above to
any ACTUAL source or Actual wording is purely fictional.

OK Emmett what's your source :)

Will
W***@aol.com
2005-12-04 20:02:57 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:08:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by butlergrt
Todd, while I pretty much support the chronology and descent of William I
and such as has been presented and posted, I still like to tie up loose
ends on this William son of Ketel "just in case" there was an early scribe
who didn't know his latin well or the individuals involved, and the two
Williams, William Lancaster I and William son of Ketel are not one in the
same.
Emmett the problem here is you haven't yet, and no one has yet, presented ANY
evidence (to my mind) that William FitzKetel and William de Lancaster were
the same person. It's not a question of whether someone goofed this century or
four hundred years ago and made them the same. The question is, is there ANY
primary evidence, whatsoever, in Latin, English, French or Hungarian, that
makes them the same person?

If there is, can you QUOTE that primary document and the source?
Thanks
Will Johnson
butlergrt
2005-12-05 01:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Will,
Unless the context of my post gave you that impression, it is most
regretable. The point was we have two Williams, one a son and one a
nephew, which one became William de Lancaster and which one disappeared?
They are both refered to in what would be considered primary
documentation. Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew, until you know the other William is
dead and buried (and put in his place) you can never really be sure can
you?

I, for one, would say it is probably 98% Certain he is a nephew but then
again.... 1000 years ago and different languages, the records, etc., the
inconsistancies we have seen on this family, I would place money but I
wouldn't bet the family farm on it. A strong calculated risk, sure, but
based on the inconsistincies, history and track record including primary
documentation on THIS family, it would be nice to know what happened to
the other William.
Best Regards,
Emmet L. Butler
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-05 02:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Good Evening Will,
Unless the context of my post gave you that impression, it is most
regretable. The point was we have two Williams, one a son and one a
nephew, which one became William de Lancaster and which one disappeared?
But I don't think this is what we have at all. We have a William Fitz
Ketel, and we have a William de Lancaster who calls Ketel his avunculus.
If you argue that William de Lancaster I is William Fits Ketel, then
we have only one person, but two conflicting relationships.
Post by butlergrt
They are both refered to in what would be considered primary
documentation. Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew, until you know the other William is
dead and buried (and put in his place) you can never really be sure can
you?
You almost never know - most people at this time just disappear from the
records and their heirs (or non-heir successors) simply appear in their
place. Universal obituaries are a modern phenomenon. The very fact that
William calls Ketel his avunculus is about as strong evidence as you can
hope to find that he wasn't son of Ketel.

taf
Le Bateman
2005-12-05 05:22:29 UTC
Permalink
In regard to Orm fitz Gamel; Fletcher points out that in 1063 Orm,
Gamel, and Dolfin were murdered on a visit to Harold's Court in 1063. They
were from Northumbria. They supposedly had Tostig's protection of safe
conduct to Harold's court. Fletcher points to Tostig as the possible
culprit in the murders. Perhaps Tostig was a player in the feud between the
House of Uhtred and the House of Thurbrand.
Gospatric, who is presumed to be the son of Uhtred was also murdered
after December 1064. Fletcher also says Tostig did this at Queen Edith's
bidding. Maybe these being descendants of Ælfred, she believed them to be a
threat to the throne, or perhaps Thurbrand was her kin, who really knows.
These later persons, may have been his descendants. Their kinship with an
Gospatric is mentioned in a writ he drew up.
Le
:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <***@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel ReplyAgain
Post by butlergrt
Good Evening Will,
Unless the context of my post gave you that impression, it is most
regretable. The point was we have two Williams, one a son and one a
nephew, which one became William de Lancaster and which one disappeared?
But I don't think this is what we have at all. We have a William Fitz
Ketel, and we have a William de Lancaster who calls Ketel his avunculus.
If you argue that William de Lancaster I is William Fits Ketel, then
we have only one person, but two conflicting relationships.
Post by butlergrt
They are both refered to in what would be considered primary
documentation. Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew, until you know the other William is
dead and buried (and put in his place) you can never really be sure can
you?
You almost never know - most people at this time just disappear from the
records and their heirs (or non-heir successors) simply appear in their
place. Universal obituaries are a modern phenomenon. The very fact that
William calls Ketel his avunculus is about as strong evidence as you can
hope to find that he wasn't son of Ketel.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-05 02:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

William de Lancaster I appears in early records as William Fitz
Gilbert, or as William Taillebois. He was the son of a certain Gilbert
and his wife, Godith, as proven by his own charter to the canons of St.
Mary de Pre of Leicester, in which he specifically refers to his
parents by name [Reference: VCH Lancaster 1 (1906): 359, citing Farrer,
Lanc. Pipe Rolls, pp. 392-393]. This is the same charter dated post
1153 which also mentions William de Lancaster I's wife, Gundred, and
Gundred daughter of the countess, both then living, as well as Margaret
daughter of the Countess (evidently deceased).

Given the above evidence, I think it's safe for Emmett to assume that
William de Lancaster I is a completely separate and distinct person
from William Fitz Ketel.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

.
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:08:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by butlergrt
Todd, while I pretty much support the chronology and descent of William I
and such as has been presented and posted, I still like to tie up loose
ends on this William son of Ketel "just in case" there was an early scribe
who didn't know his latin well or the individuals involved, and the two
Williams, William Lancaster I and William son of Ketel are not one in the
same.
Emmett the problem here is you haven't yet, and no one has yet, presented ANY
evidence (to my mind) that William FitzKetel and William de Lancaster were
the same person. It's not a question of whether someone goofed this century or
four hundred years ago and made them the same. The question is, is there ANY
primary evidence, whatsoever, in Latin, English, French or Hungarian, that
makes them the same person?
If there is, can you QUOTE that primary document and the source?
Thanks
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-12-05 15:37:11 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/4/2005 6:09:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

Back to my point, while it appears fairly obvious that
William de lancaster was a nephew


There is also the theory that he was a grandson. So I wouldn't say
"obvious". It hinges on whether the meaning of "avunculus" was firm at this time, or
fluid, and also whether the document was writen with the correct
representation of the relationships.
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-12-05 21:22:09 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/3/05 1:53:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< J.C.B. Sharp kindly provided a synopsis of Ms. Thompson's argument. We
want to see the evidence now. >>

"> << In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130. >>"
But Douglas the fact that she collated all of the extant versions of the
charter isn't part of her argument. This fact is what I was pointing out. Farrer
had one of these, Kathleen has them all.
Will
W***@aol.com
2005-12-05 22:09:24 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/3/05 4:53:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< Nigel Barker in a message GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives; Subject: Re: Ivo and
Lucy Talybois Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998. wrote:

<<*VICTORIA HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE VOL I pp35

Notes from passage on the family of Lancaster, Barons of Kendal
"The first recorded member is little mentioned beyond the bare fact that
his name was Gilbert and his wife's name was Godith (Lancs Fines Rec Soc XXXIX
61). To this the monkish chroniclers have added the fiction that he was the
son of Ketel, son of Eldred, son of Ivo Taillebois (Mon Angl iii 553 &
Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem Soc (New Series) xxxix 305), whereas he was almost,
if not quite, contemporary with Ivo, by whom Gilbert and his predecessor was
probably enffeoffed of those manors within the Barony of Westmoreland which
his descendants, the barons of Kendal, where chief lords. (Gilbert fitz
Reinford & Helewise his wife confirmed some of Ivo's grants to the Abbey of St.
Mary, York (Mon Ang iii 566)) >>

Sorry I don't see at all.
1) Throwing in an extraneous Gilbert "fitzReinford" and Helewise to add to
the confusion after already naming Gilbert "and his wife Godith" without any
explanation of why this other Gilbert is relevant only muddies the water.
2) Gilbert and Godith are *only* named in passing in a MUCH later document.
There is little to tell us when he lived. To state that he must have been
contemporary with Ivo is pure fiction. For all we know he could have been Ivo's
grandson, step-nephew or father-in-law or any of a dozen other relations, or
completely unrelated and living 20, or 30 years later or earlier.

Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-12-05 22:19:13 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/3/05 6:40:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< Willelmus filius Willelmi debet xxx m. ut habeat duellum versus
Gospatricium
filium Orm. >>

So all this is saying is some "William son of William"
Doesn't specify anything to definitely state who this person was.
Will Johnson
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-10 21:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Richardson, as a trained historian and genealogist, cannot be serious. When
asked for a source for his claim that Roger was either Count Roger of Poitou
or Roger, Count of Poitou, to reply with a website is just not good enough.

Richardson in the past has made it clear he has access to ES.

ES III/4 Tafel 637 covers this de Montgommery family.

It is indicated that "Poictevin" (Pictavinus) is a nickname. Is this were
the confusion comes from?

Roger "Poictevin" (Pictavinus) de Montgommery, became in 1113 Count de La
Marche, no doubt because of his wife. As a result in 1094 this Roger does
not seem to have been a Count of any kind.

Roger (according to ES) was the fourth (!) son of a French noble who was a
Sire and a Vicomte and who in England became Earl of Shropshire and
Shrewsbury. The eldest brother of Roger became in 1101 Count of Ponthieu.

No doubt this was a slip by Richardson and he should acknowledge that. You
have to make a clean slate to go on, but in that direction Richardson never
has been very good.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <***@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: Count Roger of Poitou
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear CED ~
Nice to see you back again.
Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.
For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.
Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?
CED
My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of
the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries
and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire &
Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely
a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that
the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a
large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the
crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility
that he
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important
castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came
to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins,
Norman
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary
York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Patricia Junkin
2005-12-10 21:45:15 UTC
Permalink
"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W. S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?
Thanks,
Pat

----------
Post by Leo van de Pas
Subject: Count Roger of Poitou
Date: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 3:46 PM
Dear CED ~
Nice to see you back again.
Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.
For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.
Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?
CED
My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that
he
Post by Leo van de Pas
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins,
Norman
Post by Leo van de Pas
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-10 21:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Ponthieu is a different locality from Poitou.

DR
Post by Patricia Junkin
"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W. S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?
Thanks,
Pat
----------
Post by Leo van de Pas
Subject: Count Roger of Poitou
Date: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 3:46 PM
Dear CED ~
Nice to see you back again.
Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.
For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.
Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?
CED
My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that
he
Post by Leo van de Pas
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins,
Norman
Post by Leo van de Pas
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-10 22:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Dear Patricia,

ES III/4 Tafels 637 and 640 tell how Roger, Comte de La Marche had a younger
brother, Arnoul/Arnulf who went to Scotland and is the founder of the
Scottish Montgomerie family.

I could not find a Reginald, but my feeling is that the Reginald you refer
to was fresh from France and his name may imply from where he came.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Patricia Junkin" <***@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Count Roger of Poitou
Post by Patricia Junkin
"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W. S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?
Thanks,
Pat
----------
Post by Leo van de Pas
Subject: Count Roger of Poitou
Date: Sat, Dec 10, 2005, 3:46 PM
Dear CED ~
Nice to see you back again.
Of course, I meant to say Count Roger of Poitou, not Roger, Count of
Poitou.
For further particulars on Count Roger of Poitou (often called Count
http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Lancashire.htm
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear J.C.B. ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I have the 1094 charter of Roger, Count of Poitou in front of me, along
with the witness list.
Does Richardson have a source which makes Roger of Montgomery
(otherwise known as Roger le Poitevin) count of Poitou?
CED
My copy is taken from The Lancashire Pipe
Post by Douglas Richardson
Rolls ... and Early Lancaster Charters, edited by William Farrer,
published in 1902, pp. 289-296. The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. Count Roger states that he grants various properties to
the Abbey of St. Martin of Sees for the health of his soul, and that of
"Roger Scroberiae" his father, his mother Countess Mabel, for his
brothers, and his kinsfolk ("amicis"). So, the charter is definitely
contempory to Count Roger, it being issued by Count Roger himself.
The charter is witnessed by the said Count [Roger] and Sibyl his
daughter, Godfrey the Sheriff, Albert de Grelle, G. Boisell and Albert
his brother, Pain de Vilers, Orm Fitz Ketel, and others.
Regarding the dating of the charter, 1094, which date was "given to
this charter by the monks of Sees," the editor, Mr. Farrer, states that
the date is "supported by what is known of the grantor and the subjects
of the grant." He further states: "It was during the period which
followed his rehabilitation in his English estates, after the accession
of Rufus in 1088, and before the final downfall of the house of
Montgomery in 1102."
Among other grants contained in the charter, Count Roger gave the whole
town of Poulton in Amounderness. Farrer adds: "Both the Register of
Lancaster Priory, and the Pipe Rolls, prove that the Abbey of Sees had
been disseised in 1102, at any rate of the land in Poulton, if not the
church."
Farrer continues: "The witnesses' names are most important, for we may
expect to find among them the names of some at any rate of the Count's
Lancashire knights and thanes."
The first witness, Godfridus Vicecomes (or Godfrey the Sheriff) "was
one of ten knights who had been enfeoffed by the Count before Domesday,
and was at the date of the Survey holding lands of the King in West
Derby Hundred."
Regarding Albert de Grelle, Farrer says: "This is Albert Grelley, to
whom before the time of Domesday, jointly with Roger de Busli, [held]
the hundred of Blackburn [which] had been given by Count Roger. He has
been generally regarded as the first baron of Manchester, but the
evidecne to prove it is practically nil. As, however, his son Robert
Grelley certainly held the barony during the latter part of Henry I's
reign, and was holding a small portion of the escheated fief of Erneis
de Burun in Lindsay in 1114-1116, of the King in chief, it is evidence
that he or his father did not suffer banishment with Count Roger."
Regarding Pain de Vilers, Farrer states: "The first reputed baron of
Warrngton. He aftewards held fees under Count Stephen of Mortin in
cos. Nottingham and Lincoln. In the latter county he was tenant of
Upton, between the years 1114-1116."
Given the fact that the charter appears to date to the period,
1088-1102, I can accept the date 1094 assigned to it by the monks of
Sees. This date is supportable by the knowledge that Godfrey the
Sheriff and Albert de Grelle were both living before the Domesday
Survey (1086). Also, we know that Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda, was
born in or before her father, Earl Gospatric's death in 1075.
Farrer's comments regarding Orm Fitz Ketel reflect the mush of bad
"[He] was the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who before 1093 held various
estates under Ivo Taillebois, both in the barony of Egremont, co. Cumb.
and in Kendal. Orm married Gunnild, daughter of Gospatrick, sometime
Earl of Northumberland (who held the manor of Ulverston before the
conquest), and was ancestor of the Curwan family of Workington."
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ketel Fitz Eldred held property
under Ivo Taillebois before 1093, in either Cumberland or Kendal.
Ketel Fitz Eldred first surfaces in the the records in the 1120's, and
can not possibly be the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094.
Rather, I believe that Orm Fitz Ketel's father is the Orm who held
various estates in Lancashire in 1066, whose descendants were evidently
later dispossessed by Normans. If correct, we might suppose that Orm
Fitz Ketel likely lost his father, Orm's lands in Lancashire upon the
banishment of Count Roger in 1102. If so, this would explain why Orm
Fitz Ketel fails to appear in records in the period after 1102. His
connection if any to Ketel Fitz Eldred who occurs in the 1120's in
Cumberland remains elusive.
Given the above information and the charter itself, I fail to see how
Kathleen Thompson can allege this is a confirmation charter dated c.
1130, unless we are talking about two different charters. Count Roger
specifically states that he is giving ["Rogerus Comes Pictavencis ...
dedit"], not confirming, the properties to the Abbey of Sees.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and
Settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the
Poitevin, Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire,
CXL, 201-225). She concludes that what Orm witnessed was most likely a
confirmation and that the date was closer to 1130.
It is important to understand that the barony of Kendal did not exist
before the time of King Richard I, and that there is no evidence that the
Lancaster family were tenants in chief before that time.
Ivo Taillebois clearly held directly from the king. He was given a large
fee and a careful analysis shows that most fell eventually to the crown.
So he had no heir, although this does not rule out the possibility that
he
Post by Leo van de Pas
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
married off a daughter or two. In particular he held the important castle
of Appleby which was included in the share of his widow Lucy but came to
the crown on her death. The same thing happened to his property in
Normandy at Cristot which was given to Saint-Etienne Caen (Haskins,
Norman
Post by Leo van de Pas
Post by CED
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by J.C.B.Sharp
Institutions, 9).
The fact that Ketel's charter giving the same churches to St Mary York as
Ivo had given is worded as a grant rather than a confirmation is not
conclusive. At this date it could have been either.
J.C.B.Sharp
London
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-10 22:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patricia Junkin
"A mid-twelfth-century charter of the earliest William de Vieuxpont to
appear in Scottish record..anent Ogilface in Torphicen, was witnessed by, i.
a., Reginald "of Ponthieu" (de Puntiu), Ponthieu being not far to the east
of Eu, along with Richard de Vieuxponti, Roger Quirem, Roger 'of Carriden,
and Godwin of 'Carriden..The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, The Ford
Lectures Delivered in the University of Oxford in Hilary Term 1977. G. W. S.
Barrow.
Can anyone suggest the relationbship of Reginald to Roger?
Reginald came from Ponthieu. Roger was "the Poitevin" - from Poitou.
These are entirely different places.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-12-10 22:39:07 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/10/05 1:22:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@netspeed.com.au writes:

<< Roger (according to ES) was the fourth (!) son of a French noble who was a
Sire and a Vicomte and who in England became Earl of Shropshire and
Shrewsbury. The eldest brother of Roger became in 1101 Count of Ponthieu. >>

Please read this post from Leo again. Some of you are glossing over the very
pertinent fact that Roger the Poitevin and "the eldest brother of Roger"
Count of PONTHIEU were .... brothers .

So all the emails saying Poitou and Ponthieu are different places are
irrelevant.
These two names are connected in one single family by the connection or Roger
to his own brother.

Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-12-10 22:40:58 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/10/05 1:10:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< The charter was issued by Count Roger
himself. It is clearly not a late date confirmation charter as alleged
by Thompson. >>

Why are we getting this post again?
It's already been pointed out that all this argumentation is now suspect.
If the monks merely copied out the charter and then added stuff of COURSE
it's going to say "I give" and not "sometime in the past somebody gave..."

That's the nature of copying.
But is this a new post? Or is the email engine acting up?
W***@aol.com
2005-12-10 22:43:12 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/10/05 2:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@interfold.com writes:

<< Thus all of your remaining analysis is irrelevant -
the original charter was by Count Roger, and many of the names, were
copied from the original - dating them does nothing to validate a late
copy "embellished" (her word) with additional lands and with, among
others, the name of Orm filius Ketel not originally present. >>


I was thinking about this issue again, and I'm curious.... WHY would the
monks add Orm FitzKetel in particular? What was significant about his name,
versus fifty other names they could have added. Was he, at the time, the lord in
that area? Or did they maybe think his name should be on the document,
*because* the competing monks were arguing using the very fact that he was *not* on
it, that it was suspect? It's a curious side-issue :) For me at any rate.
Leo van de Pas
2005-12-10 22:51:06 UTC
Permalink
What I find curious, where is Sees (the first e has an accent) and the Abbey
of St.Martin?
Is it in Lancashire? Or in France? If in Lancashire, why would 10 years
before the conquest Roger Senior baptise a son in Lancashire?
Leo van de Pas



----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 12/10/05 2:26:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< Thus all of your remaining analysis is irrelevant -
the original charter was by Count Roger, and many of the names, were
copied from the original - dating them does nothing to validate a late
copy "embellished" (her word) with additional lands and with, among
others, the name of Orm filius Ketel not originally present. >>
I was thinking about this issue again, and I'm curious.... WHY would the
monks add Orm FitzKetel in particular? What was significant about his name,
versus fifty other names they could have added. Was he, at the time, the lord in
that area? Or did they maybe think his name should be on the document,
*because* the competing monks were arguing using the very fact that he was *not* on
it, that it was suspect? It's a curious side-issue :) For me at any rate.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...