Discussion:
Apparent error in Sanders (Salwarpe)
Add Reply
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-11 13:35:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear List,
1. Seems worth registering any apparent errors in a source like Sanders.
2. I am also hoping anyone who sees an error in my thinking or knows of better sources can mention it...

pp.75-76 Sanders discusses the descent of the feudal barony of Salwarpe in Worcestershire. The Beauchamps (Bello Campo) family who held this lordship are the family who became earls of Warwick, but before then Sanders says:

In 1197 "William II" died.

Walter II, his son, attained his majority sometime between Michaelmas 1211 and July 1214 and then died 1236.

Notice the gap. The problem is that other respectable sources insert another William, also a minor, you must be Walter II's older brother. For example:

*Maxwell Lyte in his introduction to the 1208-1213 section of the modern Testa de Nevill ed. (Vol. p.34).
*Emma Mason in the Intro to the Beauchamp cartulary.

I have gone through many of the primary sources, though not the important King John Pipe Rolls, which are not online. These give me some doubts because I see both the minors are mainly recorded under similar-looking diminutives such as Wilekin and Watekin, and I have not yet found a record mentioning a death of Wilekin. I notice that older secondary sources like Dugdale just treat Wilekin and Watekin as one person.

However, Sanders himself has a footnote (p.76 footnote 2) which seems to show that he had looked into this question but forgot to clarify his text. He says that "William II" (which is actually his name for William who died 1197) was a ward of William de Braose, and then of Roger de Mortimer; he married Roger's daughter Joan. Looking to the primary documents, he is however clearly talking about events AFTER 1197, and therefore a son of William II. In fact, Joan de Mortimer certainly married Watekin/Walter and so Sanders combines elements of Walter and elements of their apparent father.

In summary, Sanders seems to miss a William, between his William II (d.1197) and his Walter II (d.1236). He does include some notes about this William, but in a confusing way.

Can anyone add anything to this?

Regards
Andrew Lancaster
Jan Wolfe
2019-10-12 13:29:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Dear List,
1. Seems worth registering any apparent errors in a source like Sanders.
2. I am also hoping anyone who sees an error in my thinking or knows of better sources can mention it...
In 1197 "William II" died.
Walter II, his son, attained his majority sometime between Michaelmas 1211 and July 1214 and then died 1236.
*Maxwell Lyte in his introduction to the 1208-1213 section of the modern Testa de Nevill ed. (Vol. p.34).
*Emma Mason in the Intro to the Beauchamp cartulary.
I have gone through many of the primary sources, though not the important King John Pipe Rolls, which are not online. These give me some doubts because I see both the minors are mainly recorded under similar-looking diminutives such as Wilekin and Watekin, and I have not yet found a record mentioning a death of Wilekin. I notice that older secondary sources like Dugdale just treat Wilekin and Watekin as one person.
However, Sanders himself has a footnote (p.76 footnote 2) which seems to show that he had looked into this question but forgot to clarify his text. He says that "William II" (which is actually his name for William who died 1197) was a ward of William de Braose, and then of Roger de Mortimer; he married Roger's daughter Joan. Looking to the primary documents, he is however clearly talking about events AFTER 1197, and therefore a son of William II. In fact, Joan de Mortimer certainly married Watekin/Walter and so Sanders combines elements of Walter and elements of their apparent father.
In summary, Sanders seems to miss a William, between his William II (d.1197) and his Walter II (d.1236). He does include some notes about this William, but in a confusing way.
Can anyone add anything to this?
Regards
Andrew Lancaster
I happen to have the 1204 Michaelmas Pipe Roll transcription handy. There is one entry for a Willelmus de Belchamp in Rot. 18 Mem. 1 (Warewich et Leircestr'scr'):
Willelmus de Belchamp debet xl s. pro militibus suis . sicut continetur in rotulo primo.
Doris M. Stenton, ed., _The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Sixth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1204 (Pipe Roll 50)_ (London: J. W. Ruddock & Sons for the Pipe Roll Society, 1940), 221.
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-13 21:36:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Dear List,
1. Seems worth registering any apparent errors in a source like Sanders.
2. I am also hoping anyone who sees an error in my thinking or knows of better sources can mention it...
In 1197 "William II" died.
Walter II, his son, attained his majority sometime between Michaelmas 1211 and July 1214 and then died 1236.
*Maxwell Lyte in his introduction to the 1208-1213 section of the modern Testa de Nevill ed. (Vol. p.34).
*Emma Mason in the Intro to the Beauchamp cartulary.
I have gone through many of the primary sources, though not the important King John Pipe Rolls, which are not online. These give me some doubts because I see both the minors are mainly recorded under similar-looking diminutives such as Wilekin and Watekin, and I have not yet found a record mentioning a death of Wilekin. I notice that older secondary sources like Dugdale just treat Wilekin and Watekin as one person.
However, Sanders himself has a footnote (p.76 footnote 2) which seems to show that he had looked into this question but forgot to clarify his text. He says that "William II" (which is actually his name for William who died 1197) was a ward of William de Braose, and then of Roger de Mortimer; he married Roger's daughter Joan. Looking to the primary documents, he is however clearly talking about events AFTER 1197, and therefore a son of William II. In fact, Joan de Mortimer certainly married Watekin/Walter and so Sanders combines elements of Walter and elements of their apparent father.
In summary, Sanders seems to miss a William, between his William II (d.1197) and his Walter II (d.1236). He does include some notes about this William, but in a confusing way.
Can anyone add anything to this?
Regards
Andrew Lancaster
Willelmus de Belchamp debet xl s. pro militibus suis . sicut continetur in rotulo primo.
Doris M. Stenton, ed., _The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Sixth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1204 (Pipe Roll 50)_ (London: J. W. Ruddock & Sons for the Pipe Roll Society, 1940), 221.
Thanks Jan. That supports the idea of their being two young Beauchamps, unless they were using the father's name? I suppose the Pipe Rolls around 1209 must say something more interesting.
Jan Wolfe
2019-10-14 14:59:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Dear List,
1. Seems worth registering any apparent errors in a source like Sanders.
2. I am also hoping anyone who sees an error in my thinking or knows of better sources can mention it...
In 1197 "William II" died.
Walter II, his son, attained his majority sometime between Michaelmas 1211 and July 1214 and then died 1236.
*Maxwell Lyte in his introduction to the 1208-1213 section of the modern Testa de Nevill ed. (Vol. p.34).
*Emma Mason in the Intro to the Beauchamp cartulary.
I have gone through many of the primary sources, though not the important King John Pipe Rolls, which are not online. These give me some doubts because I see both the minors are mainly recorded under similar-looking diminutives such as Wilekin and Watekin, and I have not yet found a record mentioning a death of Wilekin. I notice that older secondary sources like Dugdale just treat Wilekin and Watekin as one person.
However, Sanders himself has a footnote (p.76 footnote 2) which seems to show that he had looked into this question but forgot to clarify his text. He says that "William II" (which is actually his name for William who died 1197) was a ward of William de Braose, and then of Roger de Mortimer; he married Roger's daughter Joan. Looking to the primary documents, he is however clearly talking about events AFTER 1197, and therefore a son of William II. In fact, Joan de Mortimer certainly married Watekin/Walter and so Sanders combines elements of Walter and elements of their apparent father.
In summary, Sanders seems to miss a William, between his William II (d.1197) and his Walter II (d.1236). He does include some notes about this William, but in a confusing way.
Can anyone add anything to this?
Regards
Andrew Lancaster
Willelmus de Belchamp debet xl s. pro militibus suis . sicut continetur in rotulo primo.
Doris M. Stenton, ed., _The Great Roll of the Pipe for the Sixth Year of the Reign of King John, Michaelmas 1204 (Pipe Roll 50)_ (London: J. W. Ruddock & Sons for the Pipe Roll Society, 1940), 221.
Thanks Jan. That supports the idea of their being two young Beauchamps, unless they were using the father's name? I suppose the Pipe Rolls around 1209 must say something more interesting.
There is also a book, Emma Mason, ed., _The Beauchamp Cartulary, Charters 1100-1268_ (1980). Have you already you already consulted it?

A chart on p. lviij "Beauchamp of Elmley" shows two sons for William (II) (d. 1197) = Amice:

William (d. 1210-11) and Walter (II) (d. 1236) = (1) Joan (d. 1225) and = (2) Margaret (living c. 1280, d. by 1283)
Children of Walter (II) by Joan: William III (d. 1269) and James (living 1284)

William (III) = Isabel (d. ante 1268) dau. of William Mauduit (IV)
Their children were William (IV) earl of Warwick, John of Holt, Walter of Alcester, Joan (d. ante 1269) = Bartholomew of Sudeley (d. 1280), Isabel, Margaret, Sibil (unmarried 1269), and Sarah (unmarried 1269)
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-15 06:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
There is also a book, Emma Mason, ed., _The Beauchamp Cartulary, Charters 1100-1268_ (1980). Have you already you already consulted it?
William (d. 1210-11) and Walter (II) (d. 1236) = (1) Joan (d. 1225) and = (2) Margaret (living c. 1280, d. by 1283)
Children of Walter (II) by Joan: William III (d. 1269) and James (living 1284)
William (III) = Isabel (d. ante 1268) dau. of William Mauduit (IV)
Their children were William (IV) earl of Warwick, John of Holt, Walter of Alcester, Joan (d. ante 1269) = Bartholomew of Sudeley (d. 1280), Isabel, Margaret, Sibil (unmarried 1269), and Sarah (unmarried 1269)
Thanks Jan, I was aware of it, but have not tracked down a copy. (Charles Cawley does cite bits of it's intro, but not this pedigree.)
Keats-Rohan cites both this and an article from the 1970s by Emma Mason, which probably explains more, but it is also not freely available online.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1976.tb01669.x

Another thing I'd be interested to know about the rationales and sourcing from those two works is whether she accepts the adjustments to the Mauduit pedigree (extra generation d.about 1170) made by Eyton. https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/386

Best Regards
Andrew
Peter Stewart
2019-10-15 10:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Jan Wolfe
There is also a book, Emma Mason, ed., _The Beauchamp Cartulary, Charters 1100-1268_ (1980). Have you already you already consulted it?
William (d. 1210-11) and Walter (II) (d. 1236) = (1) Joan (d. 1225) and = (2) Margaret (living c. 1280, d. by 1283)
Children of Walter (II) by Joan: William III (d. 1269) and James (living 1284)
William (III) = Isabel (d. ante 1268) dau. of William Mauduit (IV)
Their children were William (IV) earl of Warwick, John of Holt, Walter of Alcester, Joan (d. ante 1269) = Bartholomew of Sudeley (d. 1280), Isabel, Margaret, Sibil (unmarried 1269), and Sarah (unmarried 1269)
Thanks Jan, I was aware of it, but have not tracked down a copy. (Charles Cawley does cite bits of it's intro, but not this pedigree.)
Keats-Rohan cites both this and an article from the 1970s by Emma Mason, which probably explains more, but it is also not freely available online.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1976.tb01669.x
Another thing I'd be interested to know about the rationales and sourcing from those two works is whether she accepts the adjustments to the Mauduit pedigree (extra generation d.about 1170) made by Eyton. https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/386
No, according to the Mauduit chart in the Beauchamp Cartulary, p. lix,
the children of William II Mauduit (died 1157/58) and Matilda of
Hanslope were:

1. William III (died 1194) who married Isabel de St Liz

2. John (died after 1178)

3. Robert of Warminster (died 1191)

4. Matilda who married Hamo fitz Meinfelin of Wolverton

5. Sibil who married Geoffrey Ridel of Great Weldon

and

6. Alice who married John de Bidun of Lavendon

all of whom left descendants.

From a quick look at the 1976 Mauduit article she doesn't appear to
mention Eyton's work at all.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-15 11:41:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Jan Wolfe
There is also a book, Emma Mason, ed., _The Beauchamp Cartulary, Charters 1100-1268_ (1980). Have you already you already consulted it?
William (d. 1210-11) and Walter (II) (d. 1236) = (1) Joan (d. 1225) and = (2) Margaret (living c. 1280, d. by 1283)
Children of Walter (II) by Joan: William III (d. 1269) and James (living 1284)
William (III) = Isabel (d. ante 1268) dau. of William Mauduit (IV)
Their children were William (IV) earl of Warwick, John of Holt, Walter of Alcester, Joan (d. ante 1269) = Bartholomew of Sudeley (d. 1280), Isabel, Margaret, Sibil (unmarried 1269), and Sarah (unmarried 1269)
Thanks Jan, I was aware of it, but have not tracked down a copy. (Charles Cawley does cite bits of it's intro, but not this pedigree.)
Keats-Rohan cites both this and an article from the 1970s by Emma Mason, which probably explains more, but it is also not freely available online.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1976.tb01669.x
Another thing I'd be interested to know about the rationales and sourcing from those two works is whether she accepts the adjustments to the Mauduit pedigree (extra generation d.about 1170) made by Eyton. https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/386
No, according to the Mauduit chart in the Beauchamp Cartulary, p. lix,
the children of William II Mauduit (died 1157/58) and Matilda of
1. William III (died 1194) who married Isabel de St Liz
2. John (died after 1178)
3. Robert of Warminster (died 1191)
4. Matilda who married Hamo fitz Meinfelin of Wolverton
5. Sibil who married Geoffrey Ridel of Great Weldon
and
6. Alice who married John de Bidun of Lavendon
all of whom left descendants.
From a quick look at the 1976 Mauduit article she doesn't appear to
mention Eyton's work at all.
Peter Stewart
Thank you Peter. That means we can not say that there is a consensus among the authorities. I am leaning towards saying Eyton should be preferred however, because:

Eyton cites records which others do not which, at least by his explanation, they seem to lead to clear conclusions. Most importantly, there is a widow Adelicia to be accounted for.

The record he mentions is from the Lewes chartulary, and he gives a date of 1170/71. It mentions four sons Robert, William, Henry and Ralf.

Eyton appears to be the only account which clearly explains the two different Roberts in these generations.

Peter, Jan, and anyone else: Any obvious error in my thinking? I have not found anyone else who has remarked on Adelicia so far, and I can hardly say that I doubt Eyton's judgement about it.

Best Regards
Andrew
Peter Stewart
2019-10-16 03:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Jan Wolfe
There is also a book, Emma Mason, ed., _The Beauchamp Cartulary, Charters 1100-1268_ (1980). Have you already you already consulted it?
William (d. 1210-11) and Walter (II) (d. 1236) = (1) Joan (d. 1225) and = (2) Margaret (living c. 1280, d. by 1283)
Children of Walter (II) by Joan: William III (d. 1269) and James (living 1284)
William (III) = Isabel (d. ante 1268) dau. of William Mauduit (IV)
Their children were William (IV) earl of Warwick, John of Holt, Walter of Alcester, Joan (d. ante 1269) = Bartholomew of Sudeley (d. 1280), Isabel, Margaret, Sibil (unmarried 1269), and Sarah (unmarried 1269)
Thanks Jan, I was aware of it, but have not tracked down a copy. (Charles Cawley does cite bits of it's intro, but not this pedigree.)
Keats-Rohan cites both this and an article from the 1970s by Emma Mason, which probably explains more, but it is also not freely available online.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1976.tb01669.x
Another thing I'd be interested to know about the rationales and sourcing from those two works is whether she accepts the adjustments to the Mauduit pedigree (extra generation d.about 1170) made by Eyton. https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/386
No, according to the Mauduit chart in the Beauchamp Cartulary, p. lix,
the children of William II Mauduit (died 1157/58) and Matilda of
1. William III (died 1194) who married Isabel de St Liz
2. John (died after 1178)
3. Robert of Warminster (died 1191)
4. Matilda who married Hamo fitz Meinfelin of Wolverton
5. Sibil who married Geoffrey Ridel of Great Weldon
and
6. Alice who married John de Bidun of Lavendon
all of whom left descendants.
From a quick look at the 1976 Mauduit article she doesn't appear to
mention Eyton's work at all.
Peter Stewart
Eyton cites records which others do not which, at least by his explanation, they seem to lead to clear conclusions. Most importantly, there is a widow Adelicia to be accounted for.
The record he mentions is from the Lewes chartulary, and he gives a date of 1170/71. It mentions four sons Robert, William, Henry and Ralf.
Eyton appears to be the only account which clearly explains the two different Roberts in these generations.
Peter, Jan, and anyone else: Any obvious error in my thinking? I have not found anyone else who has remarked on Adelicia so far, and I can hardly say that I doubt Eyton's judgement about it.
I haven't looked closely into this, but it occurs to me that Eyton
mistook Mauduit as the married named of the widow Adelicia when this may
have been actually her own family surname - in other words, she may have
been the widow of William de Pont l'Arche who was chancellor after the
death of his father-in-law Robert Mauduit.

According to Mason, William de Pont l'Arche and his Mauduit wife had a
son named Robert. She didn't list others named William, Henry and Ralf
but then she didn't ascribe these sons to any of the Mauduit Williams
either.

However, the Mauduit wife of William de Pont l'Arche was named Constance
in Mason's chart, not Adelicia, and was unnamed in Eyton's article.
Perhaps Adelicia was an alternative name of hers, or perhaps the Lewes
cartularist miscopied the charter dated 1170/71.

Here is the text of the Lewes priory charter as printed by Eyton:

"Convencio inter Willielmum Priorem de Lewes et Adeliciam Malduit et
filios ejus, Robertum, Willielmum, Radulfum, et Henricum. Adelicia et
filii ejus dederunt Priori, &c. terram in Lundon in parochia Sancti
Thome pro qua Conventus de Lewes prius reddebat octo solidos (annuatim),
tenendam de eis pro quatuor solidis (annuatim). Prior, de caritate
Ecclesise (suae) dedit Adelicie triginta solidos et unicuique filio
(suo) unum bisancium. Ecclesia de Lewes anniversarium Willielmi
(Malduit) Camerarii, viri Adelicie, singulis annis suscepit agendum,
similiter et Adelicie post obitum suum. Facta est haec convencio anno
primo Henrici Regis junioris filii Regis Henrici, presentibus Abbatibus,
Laurencio Abbate de Westmonasterio, Willielmo Abbate de Rames'. Hiis
testibus Roberto Clerico de Ram'."

The words in parentheses were evidently added by Eyton, and consequently
Adelicia's deceased husband is not surnamed Mauduit in the cartulary
version of the charter. This is reinforced by Louis Salzman's
translation of it in *The Chartulary of the Priory of St Pancras of Lewes*:

"This agreement was made between William, Prior of St Pancras of Lewes
and Adelicia Malduit and her sons Robert, William, Ralph and Henry,
namely that Adelicia and her sons just named have given to the church of
St Pancras certain land in London in the parish of St Thomas for which
the said church formerly paid 8s. to hold of them for 4s. yearly, namely
2s. at Easter and 2s. at Michaelmas. For this gift the Prior has given
of the bounty (caritate) of the church to Adelicia 30s. and to each of
her four sons one bezant. Moreover the said church has under taken to
keep the anniversary of William the Chamberlain (Camerarii), husband of
the said Adelicia, every year, and likewise that of Adelicia herself
after her death. The church shall hold the aforenamed land freely and
honourably by the annual rent of 4s. for all service. This agreement was
made in the first year of the younger King Henry son of King Henry, in
the presence of the abbots Laurence Abbot of Westminster, and William
Abbot of Ram[sey]. Witnesses: —Robert the clerk of Ram[sey], William le
Afemed, Roger the Chamberlain (Camer') of the Abbey of Westminster,
Richard de B[er]ching', Ralph de Mulesh[am], Alored de Teleburi."

Lewes priory was something of a production centre for forgeries, and
although this doesn't appear to be one of them it may have been copied
into the cartulary from an exemplar of the original in poor condition,
or that had been recreated after damage, or for any number of other
reasons changed the name of the widow from Constance to Adelicia.

But this is just a guess on my part, as I have not studied the question.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-16 06:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Jan Wolfe
There is also a book, Emma Mason, ed., _The Beauchamp Cartulary,
Charters 1100-1268_ (1980). Have you already you already consulted it?
A chart on p. lviij "Beauchamp of Elmley" shows two sons for
William (d. 1210-11) and Walter (II) (d. 1236) = (1) Joan (d. 1225)
and = (2) Margaret (living c. 1280, d. by 1283)
Children of Walter (II) by Joan: William III (d. 1269) and James (living 1284)
William (III) = Isabel (d. ante 1268) dau. of William Mauduit (IV)
Their children were William (IV) earl of Warwick, John of Holt,
Walter of Alcester, Joan (d. ante 1269) = Bartholomew of Sudeley
(d. 1280), Isabel, Margaret, Sibil (unmarried 1269), and Sarah
(unmarried 1269)
Thanks Jan, I was aware of it, but have not tracked down a copy.
(Charles Cawley does cite bits of it's intro, but not this pedigree.)
Keats-Rohan cites both this and an article from the 1970s by Emma
Mason, which probably explains more, but it is also not freely
available online.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2281.1976.tb01669.x
Another thing I'd be interested to know about the rationales and
sourcing from those two works is whether she accepts the adjustments
to the Mauduit pedigree (extra generation d.about 1170) made by
Eyton. https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/386
No, according to the Mauduit chart in the Beauchamp Cartulary, p. lix,
the children of William II Mauduit (died 1157/58) and Matilda of
1. William III (died 1194) who married Isabel de St Liz
2. John (died after 1178)
3. Robert of Warminster (died 1191)
4. Matilda who married Hamo fitz Meinfelin of Wolverton
5. Sibil who married Geoffrey Ridel of Great Weldon
and
6. Alice who married John de Bidun of Lavendon
all of whom left descendants.
  From a quick look at the 1976 Mauduit article she doesn't appear to
mention Eyton's work at all.
Peter Stewart
Thank you Peter. That means we can not say that there is a consensus
among the authorities. I am leaning towards saying Eyton should be
Eyton cites records which others do not which, at least by his
explanation, they seem to lead to clear conclusions. Most importantly,
there is a widow Adelicia to be accounted for.
The record he mentions is from the Lewes chartulary, and he gives a
date of 1170/71. It mentions four sons Robert, William, Henry and Ralf.
Eyton appears to be the only account which clearly explains the two
different Roberts in these generations.
Peter, Jan, and anyone else: Any obvious error in my thinking? I have
not found anyone else who has remarked on Adelicia so far, and I can
hardly say that I doubt Eyton's judgement about it.
I haven't looked closely into this, but it occurs to me that Eyton
mistook Mauduit as the married named of the widow Adelicia when this may
have been actually her own family surname - in other words, she may have
been the widow of William de Pont l'Arche who was chancellor after the
death of his father-in-law Robert Mauduit.
According to Mason, William de Pont l'Arche and his Mauduit wife had a
son named Robert. She didn't list others named William, Henry and Ralf
but then she didn't ascribe these sons to any of the Mauduit Williams
either.
However, the Mauduit wife of William de Pont l'Arche was named Constance
in Mason's chart, not Adelicia, and was unnamed in Eyton's article.
Perhaps Adelicia was an alternative name of hers, or perhaps the Lewes
cartularist miscopied the charter dated 1170/71.
"Convencio inter Willielmum Priorem de Lewes et Adeliciam Malduit et
filios ejus, Robertum, Willielmum, Radulfum, et Henricum. Adelicia et
filii ejus dederunt Priori, &c. terram in Lundon in parochia Sancti
Thome pro qua Conventus de Lewes prius reddebat octo solidos (annuatim),
tenendam de eis pro quatuor solidis (annuatim). Prior, de caritate
Ecclesise (suae) dedit Adelicie triginta solidos et unicuique filio
(suo) unum bisancium. Ecclesia de Lewes anniversarium Willielmi
(Malduit) Camerarii, viri Adelicie, singulis annis suscepit agendum,
similiter et Adelicie post obitum suum. Facta est haec convencio anno
primo Henrici Regis junioris filii Regis Henrici, presentibus Abbatibus,
Laurencio Abbate de Westmonasterio, Willielmo Abbate de Rames'. Hiis
testibus Roberto Clerico de Ram'."
The words in parentheses were evidently added by Eyton, and consequently
Adelicia's deceased husband is not surnamed Mauduit in the cartulary
version of the charter. This is reinforced by Louis Salzman's
"This agreement was made between William, Prior of St Pancras of Lewes
and Adelicia Malduit and her sons Robert, William, Ralph and Henry,
namely that Adelicia and her sons just named have given to the church of
St Pancras certain land in London in the parish of St Thomas for which
the said church formerly paid 8s. to hold of them for 4s. yearly, namely
2s. at Easter and 2s. at Michaelmas. For this gift the Prior has given
of the bounty (caritate) of the church to Adelicia 30s. and to each of
her four sons one bezant. Moreover the said church has under taken to
keep the anniversary of William the Chamberlain (Camerarii), husband of
the said Adelicia, every year, and likewise that of Adelicia herself
after her death. The church shall hold the aforenamed land freely and
honourably by the annual rent of 4s. for all service. This agreement was
made in the first year of the younger King Henry son of King Henry, in
the presence of the abbots Laurence Abbot of Westminster, and William
Abbot of Ram[sey]. Witnesses: —Robert the clerk of Ram[sey], William le
Afemed, Roger the Chamberlain (Camer') of the Abbey of Westminster,
Richard de B[er]ching', Ralph de Mulesh[am], Alored de Teleburi."
Lewes priory was something of a production centre for forgeries, and
although this doesn't appear to be one of them it may have been copied
into the cartulary from an exemplar of the original in poor condition,
or that had been recreated after damage, or for any number of other
reasons changed the name of the widow from Constance to Adelicia.
But this is just a guess on my part, as I have not studied the question.
On a further look at this question, I suspect that the name Constance is
more problematic than Adelicia.

Emma Mason took this from a "pretended original" charter of Henry I to
the canons of St Mary's, Porchester, naming "Willelmus de Pontearch'"
and later "Willelmus et Constancia uxor sua" as donors of the manor of
Preston Candover and land in Southwick and Applestead. This is in
*Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum* vol. 2, p. 268 no. 1787, here:
https://archive.org/details/regestaregumangl02grea/page/268.

The charter copy in the Hampshire Record Office was printed by Mason in
'The king, the chamberlain and Southwick priory', *Bulletin of the
Institute of Historical Research* 53 (1980).

However, the name of William's wife is not given in fuller copies of
Henry I's charter as printed from charter rolls in Monasticon vol. 6, p.
244 here: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZGKGPcFww8EC&pg=PA244.

The Mauduit wife of William de Pont l'Arche is mentioned without giving
her name in 'Gesta Stephani' and in William of Malmesbury's 'Historia
novella'. Maybe she was Adelicia, and Constance is just a copyist's
error or interpolation in a pseudo-original version of an authentic
document which did not name her.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-16 06:11:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Peter, Jan, and anyone else: Any obvious error in my thinking? I have not found anyone else who has remarked on Adelicia so far, and I can hardly say that I doubt Eyton's judgement about it.
I haven't looked closely into this, but it occurs to me that Eyton
mistook Mauduit as the married named of the widow Adelicia when this may
have been actually her own family surname - in other words, she may have
been the widow of William de Pont l'Arche who was chancellor after the
death of his father-in-law Robert Mauduit.
According to Mason, William de Pont l'Arche and his Mauduit wife had a
son named Robert. She didn't list others named William, Henry and Ralf
but then she didn't ascribe these sons to any of the Mauduit Williams
either.
However, the Mauduit wife of William de Pont l'Arche was named Constance
in Mason's chart, not Adelicia, and was unnamed in Eyton's article.
Perhaps Adelicia was an alternative name of hers, or perhaps the Lewes
cartularist miscopied the charter dated 1170/71.
"Convencio inter Willielmum Priorem de Lewes et Adeliciam Malduit et
filios ejus, Robertum, Willielmum, Radulfum, et Henricum. Adelicia et
filii ejus dederunt Priori, &c. terram in Lundon in parochia Sancti
Thome pro qua Conventus de Lewes prius reddebat octo solidos (annuatim),
tenendam de eis pro quatuor solidis (annuatim). Prior, de caritate
Ecclesise (suae) dedit Adelicie triginta solidos et unicuique filio
(suo) unum bisancium. Ecclesia de Lewes anniversarium Willielmi
(Malduit) Camerarii, viri Adelicie, singulis annis suscepit agendum,
similiter et Adelicie post obitum suum. Facta est haec convencio anno
primo Henrici Regis junioris filii Regis Henrici, presentibus Abbatibus,
Laurencio Abbate de Westmonasterio, Willielmo Abbate de Rames'. Hiis
testibus Roberto Clerico de Ram'."
The words in parentheses were evidently added by Eyton, and consequently
Adelicia's deceased husband is not surnamed Mauduit in the cartulary
version of the charter. This is reinforced by Louis Salzman's
"This agreement was made between William, Prior of St Pancras of Lewes
and Adelicia Malduit and her sons Robert, William, Ralph and Henry,
namely that Adelicia and her sons just named have given to the church of
St Pancras certain land in London in the parish of St Thomas for which
the said church formerly paid 8s. to hold of them for 4s. yearly, namely
2s. at Easter and 2s. at Michaelmas. For this gift the Prior has given
of the bounty (caritate) of the church to Adelicia 30s. and to each of
her four sons one bezant. Moreover the said church has under taken to
keep the anniversary of William the Chamberlain (Camerarii), husband of
the said Adelicia, every year, and likewise that of Adelicia herself
after her death. The church shall hold the aforenamed land freely and
honourably by the annual rent of 4s. for all service. This agreement was
made in the first year of the younger King Henry son of King Henry, in
the presence of the abbots Laurence Abbot of Westminster, and William
Abbot of Ram[sey]. Witnesses: —Robert the clerk of Ram[sey], William le
Afemed, Roger the Chamberlain (Camer') of the Abbey of Westminster,
Richard de B[er]ching', Ralph de Mulesh[am], Alored de Teleburi."
Lewes priory was something of a production centre for forgeries, and
although this doesn't appear to be one of them it may have been copied
into the cartulary from an exemplar of the original in poor condition,
or that had been recreated after damage, or for any number of other
reasons changed the name of the widow from Constance to Adelicia.
But this is just a guess on my part, as I have not studied the question.
Peter Stewart
Thanks for looking at it Peter. I did not think of the possibility that the "surname" might not be her husbands. I know from working on the Baynards that this cartulary often has a series of charters reconfirming the same grants, so I am now wondering if there might be any other charters in the cartulary which seem to be about these same lands?

Do you think we can trust the dating which Eyton gives it?

Best Regards
Andrew

Loading...