Post by taf Post by Paul Bulkley
Richard de Redvers was a nephew/cousin of Nigel IV St Saviour of
Halton (Chesher) and wife Emma (daughter) William Fitz Osborn as
"Ricardo de Rivers nepsti praede William filli Osbertni, tunc comite exoniae"
Doesn't say anything about Nigel nor Emma. Emma, daughter of William Fitz Osbern was not wife of Nigel - she married Ralph de Gael, Earl of Norfolk. Redvers were reported to be descendants of one of Gunnora's nieces, so that explains the relationship to William Fitz Osborn.
Regarding Nigel, I know this is widely reported, but I don't recall ever seeing any evidence that the Nigel whose son William held Halton is the same as Nigel of St. Sauveur. Nigel (IV) had two sons named William, and William fitz Halton has been identified with one of these, but so have at least two other Normans named William Fitz Nigel, and they can't all be correct. Does Keats-Rohan accept this identification?
She didn't mention it at all in Domesday People, p 486 ("Willelm Filius Nigelli, Norman, tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester ..." She thought this William was "probably the same as the Domesday tenant of Robert of Mortain in Buckinghamshire. William fitz Nigel de Haga (de la Haye, of which there are several in dépt. Manche) attested a pancarte of Saint-Etienne de Caen, 1079-87 ... He died before 1130, when his son William (d.s.p. a. 1149) was his heir..."
As for the mangled quotation from Monasticon, this is a memorandum of the transmission of the lordship of the Isle of White by descent from William fitz Osbern to Isabella de Fortibus (died 1293) and its acquisition from her by Edward I. It was purportedly written while Edward was still living, so 1293/1307. It was published more recently by Stanley Hockey in *The Cartulary of Carisbrooke Priory* (1981), #239 on pp 172-173 (copied below).
I don't know why it is often stated that one of Nigel of Saint-Sauveur's two sons named William, who were living ca 1060, was identical with Hugh of Chester's tenant, nor why anyone surnamed 'de Ripuariis' should be supposed a relative of Richard de Redvers, whose surname was a toponym from Reviers in Normandy. This came to be "Rivers" in the Carisbrooke memorandum, but must we therefore leap from "name's-the-same" to "spelling-variant's-the-same"?
Memorandum quod Willelmus bastardus conquisitor terre anglicane habuit Willelmum filium Osberni marescallum suum et conquisivit Insulam Vectam tempore que dictus Willelmus bastardus conquisivit terram Anglie; et fecit dictum Willelmum filium Osberni comitem Herfordie, qui quidem Willelmus filius Osberni habuit duos filios Johannem et Ricardum qui obierunt vivente patre eorum, post quam mortem et Willelmi patris eorum descendebat hereditas illa Ricardo Rivers nepoti predicti Willelmi filii Osberni tunc comiti Exon’ de quo Ricardo venit Baldwynus filius eius, de quo Baldwyno qui obiit sine herede de se descendebat hereditas illa Isabella sorori eius quam Willelmus de Fortibus desponsavit, qui quidem Willelmus et Isabella obierunt sine herede de se; et dicta Isabella supervixit per quam dominus rex E’ qui nunc est de ea illam adquisivit.