Discussion:
Apparent error in Sanders (Salwarpe)
(too old to reply)
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-11 13:35:40 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Peter Stewart
2019-10-16 06:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
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?
I don't see a problem with the dating - as far as I can see "Facta est
haec convencio anno primo Henrici Regis junioris filii Regis Henrici"
can only mean in the year following the coronation of Henry the young
king on 14 June 1170. He was crowned again in August 1172, but I don't
think anyone would have counted his joint-reign from the second occasion.

This charter is the only one I can see in the Lewes cartulary that
refers to Adelicia Mauduit and her sons. Salzman's translated edition is
an unfortunate approach by today's standards but I don't doubt that it
reflects the cartulary versions of charters accurately enough. It's a
mystery why Eyton left bits out of his edition.

Also I can't see that the Mauduit chronology allows for - or at any rate
indicates a likelihood of - the extra generation that he proposed.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-16 07:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
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?
I don't see a problem with the dating - as far as I can see "Facta est
haec convencio anno primo Henrici Regis junioris filii Regis Henrici"
can only mean in the year following the coronation of Henry the young
king on 14 June 1170. He was crowned again in August 1172, but I don't
think anyone would have counted his joint-reign from the second occasion.
This charter is the only one I can see in the Lewes cartulary that
refers to Adelicia Mauduit and her sons. Salzman's translated edition is
an unfortunate approach by today's standards but I don't doubt that it
reflects the cartulary versions of charters accurately enough. It's a
mystery why Eyton left bits out of his edition.
Also I can't see that the Mauduit chronology allows for - or at any rate
indicates a likelihood of - the extra generation that he proposed.
Hmmm. Is there any sign of later or earlier mentions of the "terram in Lundon in parochia Sancti Thome". Not a particularly promising type of land for identifying over the centuries perhaps but I feel I should ask it.

One of the attractions for me about Eyton's proposal is not so much chronology as that it seemed to explain the connection to Robert Mauduit of the Castle Holgate barony.
Peter Stewart
2019-10-16 09:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
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?
I don't see a problem with the dating - as far as I can see "Facta est
haec convencio anno primo Henrici Regis junioris filii Regis Henrici"
can only mean in the year following the coronation of Henry the young
king on 14 June 1170. He was crowned again in August 1172, but I don't
think anyone would have counted his joint-reign from the second occasion.
This charter is the only one I can see in the Lewes cartulary that
refers to Adelicia Mauduit and her sons. Salzman's translated edition is
an unfortunate approach by today's standards but I don't doubt that it
reflects the cartulary versions of charters accurately enough. It's a
mystery why Eyton left bits out of his edition.
Also I can't see that the Mauduit chronology allows for - or at any rate
indicates a likelihood of - the extra generation that he proposed.
Hmmm. Is there any sign of later or earlier mentions of the "terram in Lundon in parochia Sancti Thome". Not a particularly promising type of land for identifying over the centuries perhaps but I feel I should ask it.
There are at least 14 charters relating to properties (mostly land or
houses) in the parish of St Thomas - some of these earlier in the 12th
century, others late in the 13th or early in the 14th. None of them,
except for the one already posted, involves anyone named Mauduit or, as
far as I can tell, anyone close to their social standing.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
One of the attractions for me about Eyton's proposal is not so much chronology as that it seemed to explain the connection to Robert Mauduit of the Castle Holgate barony.
I'm not sure which Robert you mean - if the father-in-law of William de
Pont l'Arche, would this connection not be at least equally interesting
if the widow Adelicia had been his daughter instead of his niece by
marriage?

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-16 20:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
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?
I don't see a problem with the dating - as far as I can see "Facta est
haec convencio anno primo Henrici Regis junioris filii Regis Henrici"
can only mean in the year following the coronation of Henry the young
king on 14 June 1170. He was crowned again in August 1172, but I don't
think anyone would have counted his joint-reign from the second occasion.
This charter is the only one I can see in the Lewes cartulary that
refers to Adelicia Mauduit and her sons. Salzman's translated edition is
an unfortunate approach by today's standards but I don't doubt that it
reflects the cartulary versions of charters accurately enough. It's a
mystery why Eyton left bits out of his edition.
Also I can't see that the Mauduit chronology allows for - or at any rate
indicates a likelihood of - the extra generation that he proposed.
Hmmm. Is there any sign of later or earlier mentions of the "terram in Lundon in parochia Sancti Thome". Not a particularly promising type of land for identifying over the centuries perhaps but I feel I should ask it.
There are at least 14 charters relating to properties (mostly land or
houses) in the parish of St Thomas - some of these earlier in the 12th
century, others late in the 13th or early in the 14th. None of them,
except for the one already posted, involves anyone named Mauduit or, as
far as I can tell, anyone close to their social standing.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
One of the attractions for me about Eyton's proposal is not so much chronology as that it seemed to explain the connection to Robert Mauduit of the Castle Holgate barony.
I'm not sure which Robert you mean - if the father-in-law of William de
Pont l'Arche, would this connection not be at least equally interesting
if the widow Adelicia had been his daughter instead of his niece by
marriage?
Well thanks again. I don't quite get your final question. I suppose what you are saying is that the record Eyton brings forth is interesting no matter what it means and that is true.

The Castle Holgate Robert I would like to understand is the chamberlain who appears on the right hand page in Eyton. https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/386
He certainly looks like a family member. Looking at it afresh perhaps collapsing Eyton's two generations would not cause any major problem. He could be brother of William who died in the 1190s? I don't quite recall what was worrying me about that now. (In raising this I was taking an opportunity to bring up something I was looking at a little while back.)

Perhaps it is however correct to say that Eyton's interpretation is also still possible?
Jan Wolfe
2019-10-16 22:54:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 at 4:20:07 PM UTC-4, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
...
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Perhaps it is however correct to say that Eyton's interpretation is also still possible?
I think the chronology makes it very unlikely. Emma Mason summarizes one of the charters as follows:
Grant by Henry I to his chamberlain William Mauduit (II) of the land of Michael of Hanslope (Bucks), since Michael in his lifetime made the king his heir, and gift of Michael's daughter Matilda to William in Marriage. [August 1131 x July 1133 (? August 1131)]

The marriage settlement for William Mauduit (III) and Isabel de St. Liz was made before Simon de St. Liz (II) died in August 1153. Emma Mason's summary of another charter is as follows:
Confirmation by Earl Simon (de St. Liz (III) of Northampton) to the king's Chamberlain William Mauduit (III) and his wife Isabel, of the lands and knights' fees which his father, Earl Simon (II), gave them in free marriage. [c. 1158 x 74]

Mason also states (in the 1976 article, p. 3) that the chamberlainship of William Mauduit (II) was a new creation, distinct from that previously in the Mauduit family which had been granted to William de Pont de l'Arche when he married the daughter of Robert Mauduit (I). William Mauduit (II) and William de Pont de l'Arche were chamberlains at the same time and William de Pont de l'Arche lived into the 1140s or early 1150s. (For information about William de Pont de l'Arche, Mason cites K. R. Potter, ed., _Gesta Stephani_ (1955), p. 5, 100-101, and _Historia Novella_ (1955), p. 15 by the same editor.)

Also notice that Robert is the first son listed by Adeliza Mauduit, suggesting that Robert, not William, was her oldest son and all of them were alive in 1170. Adeliza may have used her maiden surname because her husband had had his position as chamberlain because it had descended to her. He had it for life but it didn't descend to their son Robert.

Peter, thanks for clarifying that the surname of William (Adeliza's husband) was an insertion by Eyton in the 1170 document. That makes all the difference in its interpretation.
Peter Stewart
2019-10-17 00:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Perhaps it is however correct to say that Eyton's interpretation is also still possible?
Grant by Henry I to his chamberlain William Mauduit (II) of the land of Michael of Hanslope (Bucks), since Michael in his lifetime made the king his heir, and gift of Michael's daughter Matilda to William in Marriage. [August 1131 x July 1133 (? August 1131)]
Confirmation by Earl Simon (de St. Liz (III) of Northampton) to the king's Chamberlain William Mauduit (III) and his wife Isabel, of the lands and knights' fees which his father, Earl Simon (II), gave them in free marriage. [c. 1158 x 74]
Mason also states (in the 1976 article, p. 3) that the chamberlainship of William Mauduit (II) was a new creation, distinct from that previously in the Mauduit family which had been granted to William de Pont de l'Arche when he married the daughter of Robert Mauduit (I). William Mauduit (II) and William de Pont de l'Arche were chamberlains at the same time and William de Pont de l'Arche lived into the 1140s or early 1150s. (For information about William de Pont de l'Arche, Mason cites K. R. Potter, ed., _Gesta Stephani_ (1955), p. 5, 100-101, and _Historia Novella_ (1955), p. 15 by the same editor.)
Also notice that Robert is the first son listed by Adeliza Mauduit, suggesting that Robert, not William, was her oldest son and all of them were alive in 1170. Adeliza may have used her maiden surname because her husband had had his position as chamberlain because it had descended to her. He had it for life but it didn't descend to their son Robert.
Peter, thanks for clarifying that the surname of William (Adeliza's husband) was an insertion by Eyton in the 1170 document. That makes all the difference in its interpretation.
It was surprising to me when I read Eyton's text of the 1170/71 charter that Adeliza would have called herself Mauduit if she had been the widow of a Mauduit rather than born one herself - I haven't researched the question specifically, but my impression is that in the late-12th century Anglo-Norman women didn't usually take their husbands' surnames for life (if at all).

In any case, there remains the question of whether William de Pont de l'Arche's Mauduit wife was named Adeliza or Constance (unless she had both names). although Emma Mason appears to overlook it, I think the charter printed by Eyton may be stronger evidence on this point than the forged version of Henry I's charter inserting the name Constance for her which is not given in more authentic versions.

But without definite evidence that the Adeliza of the Lewes charter was actually the Mauduit wife (widow by 1170/71) of William de Pont de l'Arche (and I can't find any) this is just a hunch on my part. The Pont de l'Arche family doesn't seem to be well-documented - the best-known member was probably the William who became bishop of Lisieux in the early-13th century, perhaps a grandson of Adeliza. The published cartulary of Notre-Dame de Bonport, where this family might be expected to occur, is very poorly indexed but nothing useful jumps out at me and nothing comes up from an initial search at http://ufrhss.unicaen.fr/scripta/. Others may be luckier.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-17 07:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Thank you Jan and Peter.

I must admit I was not following the Pont de l'Arche remarks because I forgot about the earlier Robert who drowned in the White Ship.

In effect then, compared to Eyton's proposal we re-merge his William Mauduit III and IV. It seems we have no idea who his wife was?

It seems no one is questioning the documentation offers concerning the death of William II and therefore the break between William II and William III.

Obviously Ralf and Henry Mauduit are now to be deleted as there was only one document for them.

Also, the exact connection of Robert d. 1120 and Robert d. 1191 to this family remains unconfirmed? Proposing that they are both probably brothers of Williams is still just a "best guess". Or does anyone see any other possible conclusion?
Peter Stewart
2019-10-17 11:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Thank you Jan and Peter.
I must admit I was not following the Pont de l'Arche remarks because I forgot about the earlier Robert who drowned in the White Ship.
In effect then, compared to Eyton's proposal we re-merge his William Mauduit III and IV. It seems we have no idea who his wife was?
He married Isabel, daughter of Simon de St Liz II, earl of Huntingdon,
as noted before by Jan and in CP vol. 6 p. 643 note (k).
Post by Andrew Lancaster
It seems no one is questioning the documentation offers concerning the death of William II and therefore the break between William II and William III.
I can't follow what you are getting at with this.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Obviously Ralf and Henry Mauduit are now to be deleted as there was only one document for them.
Provisionally to be deleted from the Mauduit family but perhaps to be
included in the Pont de l'Arche family.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Also, the exact connection of Robert d. 1120 and Robert d. 1191 to this family remains unconfirmed? Proposing that they are both probably brothers of Williams is still just a "best guess". Or does anyone see any other possible conclusion?
I'm not sure where this is coming from - Robert who died either
in 1120 (in the White Ship disaster) or in 1129/30 (there is some
question remaining over deductions on this point) was the elder brother
of William II who married Matilda of Hanslope, while Robert (of
Warminster) who died in 1191 was a son of William II and Matilda.

Adeliza or Constance who married William de Pont de l'Arche was the
daughter and heiress of William II's elder brother Robert; hence the
inheritance of the chamberlainship by William de Pont de l'Arche in her
right, that was later transferred to the Mauduit male line rather than
passing to her son Robert.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-17 12:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
He married Isabel, daughter of Simon de St Liz II, earl of Huntingdon,
as noted before by Jan and in CP vol. 6 p. 643 note (k).
Ah yes.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
It seems no one is questioning the documentation offers concerning the death of William II and therefore the break between William II and William III.
I can't follow what you are getting at with this.
Just a check that we really see that evidence as correct. 12th century evidence of inheritances is hard to find. I am presuming there is no mistake in Eyton on this point.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Obviously Ralf and Henry Mauduit are now to be deleted as there was only one document for them.
Provisionally to be deleted from the Mauduit family but perhaps to be
included in the Pont de l'Arche family.
OK, that is what I understood.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Also, the exact connection of Robert d. 1120 and Robert d. 1191 to this family remains unconfirmed? Proposing that they are both probably brothers of Williams is still just a "best guess". Or does anyone see any other possible conclusion?
I'm not sure where this is coming from - Robert who died either
in 1120 (in the White Ship disaster) or in 1129/30 (there is some
question remaining over deductions on this point) was the elder brother
of William II who married Matilda of Hanslope, while Robert (of
Warminster) who died in 1191 was a son of William II and Matilda.
Eyton marked the affiliation of this Robert with his brother William as uncertain.
Post by Peter Stewart
Adeliza or Constance who married William de Pont de l'Arche was the
daughter and heiress of William II's elder brother Robert; hence the
inheritance of the chamberlainship by William de Pont de l'Arche in her
right, that was later transferred to the Mauduit male line rather than
passing to her son Robert.
And lastly then what about, also a chamberlain, who died 1191 or so. Is his affiliation with the other Mauduits now (more) uncertain when we ignore the Adeliza charter? Or is there perhaps more evidence anyone knows of?
Jan Wolfe
2019-10-17 14:49:23 UTC
Permalink
If there is anything more to be discovered about the given name of the daughter of Robert Mauduit (I), perhaps the researcher working on the project described here will discover it, https://www.academia.edu/721081/Women_in_the_Gesta_Stephani.

Robert Pont de l'Arche appears in the pipe rolls starting in 1158.
Peter Stewart
2019-10-17 23:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
If there is anything more to be discovered about the given name of the daughter of Robert Mauduit (I), perhaps the researcher working on the project described here will discover it, https://www.academia.edu/721081/Women_in_the_Gesta_Stephani.
Robert Pont de l'Arche appears in the pipe rolls starting in 1158.
This is one of the difficulties I see in identifying the Adeliza of the
1170/71 Lewes priory charter as the mother of Robert de Pont de l'Arche
and widow of his father William - it would be unusual that an agreement
for halving an annual rent around 12 years after William's death would
include arranging for his anniversary to be kept, though it is also
unusual for the dead person's family to accept an exchange of money for
the remission of a half-rent, rather than making an outright donation,
while asking for remembrances.

Maybe there is an obituary or anniversary list from Lewes priory that
could identify the William 'camerarius' and his widow Adeliza in this
mysterious charter. It seems very odd to me that Emma Mason hasn't
discussed it and tried to resolve these questions, or else establish a
different understanding of the people involved. Ignoring the work of
Eyton on a family of major interest to her seems a risky (if not shonky)
way to accomplish her own work.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-19 06:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
If there is anything more to be discovered about the given name of the
daughter of Robert Mauduit (I), perhaps the researcher working on the
project described here will discover it,
https://www.academia.edu/721081/Women_in_the_Gesta_Stephani.
Robert Pont de l'Arche appears in the pipe rolls starting in 1158.
This is one of the difficulties I see in identifying the Adeliza of the
1170/71 Lewes priory charter as the mother of Robert de Pont de l'Arche
and widow of his father William - it would be unusual that an agreement
for halving an annual rent around 12 years after William's death would
include arranging for his anniversary to be kept, though it is also
unusual for the dead person's family to accept an exchange of money for
the remission of a half-rent, rather than making an outright donation,
while asking for remembrances.
Maybe there is an obituary or anniversary list from Lewes priory that
could identify the William 'camerarius' and his widow Adeliza in this
mysterious charter. It seems very odd to me that Emma Mason hasn't
discussed it and tried to resolve these questions, or else establish a
different understanding of the people involved. Ignoring the work of
Eyton on a family of major interest to her seems a risky (if not shonky)
way to accomplish her own work.
And risky (if not shonky) of me to speculate about it too.

The name Constance is confirmed for the mother of Robert de Pont
l'Arche, son of William, by his undated charter for Christchurch priory,
p. 34 no.65 in the edition by Katharine Hanna, Hampshire Record Series
XVIII (2007).

Hanna ascribed this as 'mid-12th century'. One of the witnesses was
Aelard, prior of St Denys, who occurs in that capacity within an
uncertain date-range from 1148 to 6 January 1182 according to *Heads of
Religious Houses*, vol. 1 (second edition) p. 285.

So the mystery of Adelicia, widow in 1170/71 of a chamberlain named
William with fours sons whose (very common) names all occur in the Pont
de l'Arche family but not all (as far as we know) in the Mauduit family,
remains.

William of Pont de l'Arche was sheriff of Hampshire by Pentecost (29
May) in 1110 when Henry I addressed a notification to him in that
capacity ("Henricus Dei gratia rex Anglorum Willelmo de Ponte Arc'
vicecomiti ... Hoc donum confirmatum est apud Windresore ad pentecosten
quando rex reversus est a Dovera past colloquium sui et Roberti comitis
Flandrensis", *Calendar of the Charter Rolls* vol 3, pp. 351-352). It is
unlikely that a man who was an adult by that time, born by the
late-1080s and most probably earlier, would have died not long before
1170/71 as evidently did Adelicia's husband. It is also unlikely that he
would have married for the first time after the death of Robert Mauduit
in November 1120, and apparently up to a decade after since by the pipe
roll of Michaelmas 1130 he had paid only 100 marks out of a debt of 1000
for Robert's chamberlainship and marriage to his daughter.

O what a tangle web is woven around us when first we practice medieval
genealogy...

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-19 08:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Maybe there is an obituary or anniversary list from Lewes priory that
could identify the William 'camerarius' and his widow Adeliza in this
mysterious charter. It seems very odd to me that Emma Mason hasn't
discussed it and tried to resolve these questions, or else establish a
different understanding of the people involved. Ignoring the work of
Eyton on a family of major interest to her seems a risky (if not shonky)
way to accomplish her own work.
And risky (if not shonky) of me to speculate about it too.
Not really, because that way I see you put this scenario forward primarily to show that alternative scenarios exist to Eytons. That seems methodologically acceptable to me, as long as you keep indicating, as you more-or-less have, that your alternative scenario is itself not proven.

I think the initial practical question was whether to see Eyton's pedigree as the best guess available to us. I think you've given a good case for this being in doubt, even if not conclusively disproven either.

Whatever people end-up deciding at least there is now this discussion on record.
Peter Stewart
2019-10-19 10:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Maybe there is an obituary or anniversary list from Lewes priory that
could identify the William 'camerarius' and his widow Adeliza in this
mysterious charter. It seems very odd to me that Emma Mason hasn't
discussed it and tried to resolve these questions, or else establish a
different understanding of the people involved. Ignoring the work of
Eyton on a family of major interest to her seems a risky (if not shonky)
way to accomplish her own work.
And risky (if not shonky) of me to speculate about it too.
Not really, because that way I see you put this scenario forward primarily to show that alternative scenarios exist to Eytons. That seems methodologically acceptable to me, as long as you keep indicating, as you more-or-less have, that your alternative scenario is itself not proven.
I think the initial practical question was whether to see Eyton's pedigree as the best guess available to us. I think you've given a good case for this being in doubt, even if not conclusively disproven either.
Whatever people end-up deciding at least there is now this discussion on record.
I think my posts in this thread have turned out to be about as useful as
hot air, and in any case Eyton's scheme is effectively disproven by the
chronology posted by Jan up-thread - as she pointed out, William (II)
Mauduit was granted marriage to Matilda of Hanslope in August 1131 x
July 1133 (? August 1131), so that the William Mauduit whose marriage to
Isabel de St Liz was contracted by August 1153 cannot have been his
grandson as proposed by Eyton.

That doesn't leave any known chamberlain named William Mauduit available
to be the deceased husband of Adelicia in 1170/71.

Unless there were two namesakes in the same generation of the Mauduit
family who were co-chamberlains and somehow have been conflated by
historians, which I very much doubt, then Adelicia's husband was not a
Mauduit and she was more probably born into this family herself.
However, that too doesn't fit the received succession of Mauduit > Pont
de l'Arche > Mauduit chamberlains.

The Lewes cartulary is not exactly full of unquestionably authentic
documents, but I can't see any reason to suspect the one printed by
Eyton as this was translated (minus the augmentation giving William the
surname Mauduit) by Salzman.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-19 20:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
I think my posts in this thread have turned out to be about as useful as
hot air, and in any case Eyton's scheme is effectively disproven by the
chronology posted by Jan up-thread - as she pointed out, William (II)
Mauduit was granted marriage to Matilda of Hanslope in August 1131 x
July 1133 (? August 1131), so that the William Mauduit whose marriage to
Isabel de St Liz was contracted by August 1153 cannot have been his
grandson as proposed by Eyton.
True. It seems Eyton and many other authors were unaware of this St Liz marriage information.
Post by Peter Stewart
That doesn't leave any known chamberlain named William Mauduit available
to be the deceased husband of Adelicia in 1170/71.
Unless there were two namesakes in the same generation of the Mauduit
family who were co-chamberlains and somehow have been conflated by
historians, which I very much doubt, then Adelicia's husband was not a
Mauduit and she was more probably born into this family herself.
However, that too doesn't fit the received succession of Mauduit > Pont
de l'Arche > Mauduit chamberlains.
Perhaps the answer therefore has something to do with the other chamberlain we are not explaining: the Robert Mauduit who married into the Castle Holgate possession and died about 1191. Surely he means that there continued to be two chamberlains in this group of families? But who were his parents? Could Adeliza's oldest son have used her surname?
Post by Peter Stewart
The Lewes cartulary is not exactly full of unquestionably authentic
documents, but I can't see any reason to suspect the one printed by
Eyton as this was translated (minus the augmentation giving William the
surname Mauduit) by Salzman.
Either do I.
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-19 21:25:22 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 10:29:40 PM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote:

Might Adeliza's husband have been a chamberlain but not a royal one?

Just looking at Domesday Descendants for example I find two generations of William "Camerarius Londonie" in this period. (p.202) See also p.198 which notes a wife and brothers Robert and Richard, who apparently all appear in the Carulary of Ramsey.

K-R also lists a William Camerarius who was chamberlain to Roger de Mowbray in this period. (p.200)
Peter Stewart
2019-10-19 22:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Might Adeliza's husband have been a chamberlain but not a royal one?
Just looking at Domesday Descendants for example I find two generations of William "Camerarius Londonie" in this period. (p.202) See also p.198 which notes a wife and brothers Robert and Richard, who apparently all appear in the Carulary of Ramsey.
K-R also lists a William Camerarius who was chamberlain to Roger de Mowbray in this period. (p.200)
Lots of dignitaries had chamberlains, but Adelicia in 1170/71 called
herself Mauduit so that narrows the field. Also, her deceased husband
was described simply as William the chamberlain making it highly
unlikely that he was merely an episcopal or other non-royal official.

We know that William of Pont de l'Arche was succeeded by his son Robert,
who was passed over for the Mauduit chamberlainship in favour of his
mother's agnatic family. We don't know for certain when either William
de Pont l'Arche or his Mauduit wife died - he last occurs in the record
as witness to a grant by Matilda the Empress that must have been made by
October 1147, so that he is assumed to have died ca 1148 but in any
event by 1158 when Robert appears in pipe roll accounts instead of him.
There is no room for a second royal chamberlain named William in the
Pont de l'Arche family, and it is highly unlikely that one of them was
chamberlain to, say, the bishop of Winchester (their main stomping
ground in England) since until 1171 this was Henry of Blois (brother of
King Stephen, whose service William had abandoned in favour of Empress
Matilda in the 1140s).

Equally there doesn't appear to be room for a spare Mauduit chamberlain
named William dying not long before 1170/71.

This leaves at least one further possibility that I don't know enough to
rule out: that Adelicia was a Mauduit who had carried rights to a minor
royal chamberlainship (which we know were created at least twice for
younger Mauduit sons) by her marriage to a William of some unknown
family - but this is very problematic too. However, if she was the
daughter of someone surnamed Mauduit who cannot be connected into the
established lineage of the family, there are a few potential candidates
listed by Keats-Rohan in *Domesday Descendants*.

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2019-10-20 00:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps the chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes has the donor's given name written incorrectly as Adelicia rather than Constancia. If an old copy was damaged and one could see only the ending of the name, one might guess Adelicia rather than Constancia. Does Salzman provide any more information about this document? I can see just a snippet of Salzman's book on Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=dN1AAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Adelicia+Malduit
Peter Stewart
2019-10-20 01:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Perhaps the chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes has the donor's given name written incorrectly as Adelicia rather than Constancia. If an old copy was damaged and one could see only the ending of the name, one might guess Adelicia rather than Constancia. Does Salzman provide any more information about this document? I can see just a snippet of Salzman's book on Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=dN1AAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Adelicia+Malduit
This occurred to me too, but it seems a long shot and since my initial
speculation was misguided I wasn't inclined to try a second time.
Salzman translated the charter (as posted up-thread) but didn't
elucidate beyond that and dating it.

Certainly the names given for all four of Adelicia's sons were current
in the Pont de l'Arche family by the early-13th century. The IPM quoted
before shows that a Robert of Pont de l'Arche who died before 22
February 1246 had younger brothers named William and Ralph. William had
become a fugitive when accused of complicity in the murder of Henry
Clement in May 1235, and a Henry of Pont de l'Arche was a witness in
that affair (not described as his brother). This outlaw William and his
brothers Robert and Ralph were sons of another William, who was perhaps
the son of Constance Mauduit's son Robert. Another branch of their
family produced William of Pont de l'Arche who was bishop of Lisieux
from ca 1218 until 1250 - he also may have been a grandson of Constance
Mauduit.

However, it is a stretch to use this slender indication from common
names to posit a mistake by the Lewes cartularist in writing Adelicia
instead of Constance, especially given that the dating of the charter
suggests a chamberlain named William had died not long before and
apparently well after 1158 by when William of Pont de l'Arche had died
at an advanced age. Anyway, it would be unusual to request in a rent
transaction more than 10 years after someone's death for his anniversary
to be kept.

Robert Mauduit's daughter Constance was perhaps too young to be married
when he died in November 1120, but evidently old enough by 1130. She had
a much older husband, and engaged in adultery to his public humiliation
in the mid-1140s. We only know of one son of hers, Robert.

Evidence does turn up in unexpected places - for instance, the
Christchurch (Twynham) priory charter showing from an authentic document
that Robert of Pont de l'Arche's mother was named Constance, as in the
forged version of Henry I's charter relied on for this by Emma Mason.
The Mauduit family in the late-12th century is likely to have left more
such clues to be found, but with apologies I haven't the energy to
search very far.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-20 09:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Perhaps the chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes has the donor's given name written incorrectly as Adelicia rather than Constancia. If an old copy was damaged and one could see only the ending of the name, one might guess Adelicia rather than Constancia. Does Salzman provide any more information about this document? I can see just a snippet of Salzman's book on Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=dN1AAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Adelicia+Malduit
This occurred to me too, but it seems a long shot and since my initial
speculation was misguided I wasn't inclined to try a second time.
Salzman translated the charter (as posted up-thread) but didn't
elucidate beyond that and dating it.
I suppose it is worth pointing out that Eyton transcribed her name also for us, so we have his confirmation of that reading.
Post by Peter Stewart
Certainly the names given for all four of Adelicia's sons were current
in the Pont de l'Arche family by the early-13th century. The IPM quoted
before shows that a Robert of Pont de l'Arche who died before 22
February 1246 had younger brothers named William and Ralph. William had
become a fugitive when accused of complicity in the murder of Henry
Clement in May 1235, and a Henry of Pont de l'Arche was a witness in
that affair (not described as his brother). This outlaw William and his
brothers Robert and Ralph were sons of another William, who was perhaps
the son of Constance Mauduit's son Robert. Another branch of their
family produced William of Pont de l'Arche who was bishop of Lisieux
from ca 1218 until 1250 - he also may have been a grandson of Constance
Mauduit.
However, it is a stretch to use this slender indication from common
names to posit a mistake by the Lewes cartularist in writing Adelicia
instead of Constance, especially given that the dating of the charter
suggests a chamberlain named William had died not long before and
apparently well after 1158 by when William of Pont de l'Arche had died
at an advanced age. Anyway, it would be unusual to request in a rent
transaction more than 10 years after someone's death for his anniversary
to be kept.
I notice in Domesday Descendants that William de Pontearche's career and marriage had a relatively scandalous and stretched out ending. So a delay in looking after his soul might not be so surprising if those stories are correct.
Post by Peter Stewart
Robert Mauduit's daughter Constance was perhaps too young to be married
when he died in November 1120, but evidently old enough by 1130. She had
a much older husband, and engaged in adultery to his public humiliation
in the mid-1140s. We only know of one son of hers, Robert.
Evidence does turn up in unexpected places - for instance, the
Christchurch (Twynham) priory charter showing from an authentic document
that Robert of Pont de l'Arche's mother was named Constance, as in the
forged version of Henry I's charter relied on for this by Emma Mason.
The Mauduit family in the late-12th century is likely to have left more
such clues to be found, but with apologies I haven't the energy to
search very far.
I still imagine that a connection to look for must be in the unknown origins (unknown, if we can not accept Eyton) of Robert Mauduit of Warminster, who was granted Warminster in his own lifetime as explained by Eyton.
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-20 09:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
I still imagine that a connection to look for must be in the unknown origins (unknown, if we can not accept Eyton) of Robert Mauduit of Warminster, who was granted Warminster in his own lifetime as explained by Eyton.
Is seems Warminster had been held by another chamberlain.

See:
*'Warminster: Manors', in A History of the County of Wiltshire: Volume 8, Warminster, Westbury and Whorwellsdown Hundreds (London, 1965), pp. 96-103. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/wilts/vol8/pp96-103 [accessed 20 October 2019].

"By 1156 it had been granted to William FitzHamon, a tenant in several counties and constable of Salisbury Castle in the earlier part of the reign of Henry II. William held it until 1175, when it reverted to the Crown, probably by his death. It was immediately regranted in fee to Robert Mauduit, a royal chamberlain and younger son of a family whose chief estates were in Buckinghamshire."

(The article cites Eyton for a Mauduit pedigree.)
Peter Stewart
2019-10-20 10:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Perhaps the chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes has the donor's given name written incorrectly as Adelicia rather than Constancia. If an old copy was damaged and one could see only the ending of the name, one might guess Adelicia rather than Constancia. Does Salzman provide any more information about this document? I can see just a snippet of Salzman's book on Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=dN1AAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Adelicia+Malduit
This occurred to me too, but it seems a long shot and since my initial
speculation was misguided I wasn't inclined to try a second time.
Salzman translated the charter (as posted up-thread) but didn't
elucidate beyond that and dating it.
I suppose it is worth pointing out that Eyton transcribed her name also for us, so we have his confirmation of that reading.
No-one doubts that Adlicia is the name as written in the Lewes cartulary
- but this is a mid-15th century compilation, and Jan has suggested that
the cartularist at that time may have mistaken the name in his muxg
earlier source, not Eyton or Salzman getting theirs wrong.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Certainly the names given for all four of Adelicia's sons were current
in the Pont de l'Arche family by the early-13th century. The IPM quoted
before shows that a Robert of Pont de l'Arche who died before 22
February 1246 had younger brothers named William and Ralph. William had
become a fugitive when accused of complicity in the murder of Henry
Clement in May 1235, and a Henry of Pont de l'Arche was a witness in
that affair (not described as his brother). This outlaw William and his
brothers Robert and Ralph were sons of another William, who was perhaps
the son of Constance Mauduit's son Robert. Another branch of their
family produced William of Pont de l'Arche who was bishop of Lisieux
from ca 1218 until 1250 - he also may have been a grandson of Constance
Mauduit.
However, it is a stretch to use this slender indication from common
names to posit a mistake by the Lewes cartularist in writing Adelicia
instead of Constance, especially given that the dating of the charter
suggests a chamberlain named William had died not long before and
apparently well after 1158 by when William of Pont de l'Arche had died
at an advanced age. Anyway, it would be unusual to request in a rent
transaction more than 10 years after someone's death for his anniversary
to be kept.
I notice in Domesday Descendants that William de Pontearche's career and marriage had a relatively scandalous and stretched out ending. So a delay in looking after his soul might not be so surprising if those stories are correct.
The charter doesn't ask anything for his soul - it contains not a 'pro
anima' clause interceding for him but just a request for remembrance of
the anniversary of his death as part of a transaction halving the rent
to be paid by St Pancras priory for London property held from Adelicia's
family. As for "stretched out ending", I'm not sure what this means
since Keats-Rohan wrote that he died "soon after" going over from
serving King Stephen to Empress Matilda in 1143. This was around the
time his wife Constance's adulterous liaison took place, probably in
1142. That she may have been named (or even misnamed) as Adelicia when
suddenly concerned about his remembrance almost 30 years later is not
very plausible to me now that more has come to light.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Robert Mauduit's daughter Constance was perhaps too young to be married
when he died in November 1120, but evidently old enough by 1130. She had
a much older husband, and engaged in adultery to his public humiliation
in the mid-1140s. We only know of one son of hers, Robert.
Evidence does turn up in unexpected places - for instance, the
Christchurch (Twynham) priory charter showing from an authentic document
that Robert of Pont de l'Arche's mother was named Constance, as in the
forged version of Henry I's charter relied on for this by Emma Mason.
The Mauduit family in the late-12th century is likely to have left more
such clues to be found, but with apologies I haven't the energy to
search very far.
I still imagine that a connection to look for must be in the unknown origins (unknown, if we can not accept Eyton) of Robert Mauduit of Warminster, who was granted Warminster in his own lifetime as explained by Eyton.
There is nothing unknown about the origins of Robert Mauduit of
Warminster who died in 1191 - he is documented by Mason as a younger son
of William II (died 1157/58) and Matilda of Hanslope.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-20 16:03:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
There is nothing unknown about the origins of Robert Mauduit of
Warminster who died in 1191 - he is documented by Mason as a younger son
of William II (died 1157/58) and Matilda of Hanslope.
Ah! That is interesting. Any chance you could note the documentary evidence? I was not aware of any.
Jan Wolfe
2019-10-20 16:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
There is nothing unknown about the origins of Robert Mauduit of
Warminster who died in 1191 - he is documented by Mason as a younger son
of William II (died 1157/58) and Matilda of Hanslope.
Ah! That is interesting. Any chance you could note the documentary evidence? I was not aware of any.
For the first mentions of William (III)'s youngest brother Robert and for his custody of Queen Eleanor during her captivity, Mason cites Pipe Rolls:
14 H II, p. 161; 19 H II, p. 54; 20 H II, p. 29
She then states, "Henry II described Robert as his chamberlain when he granted him the manor of Warminster, to hold as one knight's fee. Robert was certainly a royal chamberlain by July 1175, and the grant of Warminster was probably made a few months later, since at Michaelmas 1176, he owed £40 for the farm of Warminster with its hundred." For this she cites:
_Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20_, ed. J. C. Davies (Pipe Rolls Soc., 1960), no. 598; R. W. Eyton, _Court, Household and Itinerary of King Henry II_ (1878), p. 193; _P.R. 22 Henry II_, p. 171.
Peter Stewart
2019-10-20 23:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
There is nothing unknown about the origins of Robert Mauduit of
Warminster who died in 1191 - he is documented by Mason as a younger son
of William II (died 1157/58) and Matilda of Hanslope.
Ah! That is interesting. Any chance you could note the documentary
evidence? I was not aware of any.
For the first mentions of William (III)'s youngest brother Robert and
for his custody of Queen Eleanor during her captivity, Mason cites
14 H II, p. 161; 19 H II, p. 54; 20 H II, p. 29
She then states, "Henry II described Robert as his chamberlain when he
granted him the manor of Warminster, to hold as one knight's fee.
Robert was certainly a royal chamberlain by July 1175, and the grant
of Warminster was probably made a few months later, since at
Michaelmas 1176, he owed £40 for the farm of Warminster with its
_Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20_, ed. J. C. Davies (Pipe Rolls Soc.,
1960), no. 598; R. W. Eyton, _Court, Household and Itinerary of King
Henry II_ (1878), p. 193; _P.R. 22 Henry II_, p. 171.
The grant of Warminster to Robert in *Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20* is on
pp. 184-185, no. 598: "Sciatis me dedisse et presenti carta confirmasse
Roberto Mauduit Camerario meo pro seruicio suo Manerium de Wermenistr’
sibi et heredibus suis tenendum quicquid ibi habebam de me et heredibus
meis per seruicium unius militis."
Robert's connection to the Hanslope Mauduits was shown by Henry II's
writ of 1166/73 (misdated to ca December 1174 by Eyton) notifying the
grant of 100 acres of cropped land to Hugh of Hanslope, to which Robert
Mauduit was the only lay witness.
Apologies, I forgot to add the citation - *Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20*
p. 72 no. 411: "Sciatis me concessisse Hugoni de Hameslape C acras terre
de essartis de Peri, et quod hereditet inde quem uoluerit. Testibus,
Johanne Decano Saresberiensi et Roberto Malduit".

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-10-21 14:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
There is nothing unknown about the origins of Robert Mauduit of
Warminster who died in 1191 - he is documented by Mason as a younger son
of William II (died 1157/58) and Matilda of Hanslope.
Ah! That is interesting. Any chance you could note the documentary evidence? I was not aware of any.
14 H II, p. 161; 19 H II, p. 54; 20 H II, p. 29
_Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20_, ed. J. C. Davies (Pipe Rolls Soc., 1960), no. 598; R. W. Eyton, _Court, Household and Itinerary of King Henry II_ (1878), p. 193; _P.R. 22 Henry II_, p. 171.
The grant of Warminster to Robert in *Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20* is on
pp. 184-185, no. 598: "Sciatis me dedisse et presenti carta confirmasse
Roberto Mauduit Camerario meo pro seruicio suo Manerium de Wermenistr’
sibi et heredibus suis tenendum quicquid ibi habebam de me et heredibus
meis per seruicium unius militis."
Robert's connection to the Hanslope Mauduits was shown by Henry II's
writ of 1166/73 (misdated to ca December 1174 by Eyton) notifying the
grant of 100 acres of cropped land to Hugh of Hanslope, to which Robert
Mauduit was the only lay witness.
Thank you noting this, as I had not seen the significance of this mention of Hanslope. I also now happily gained access to Emma Mason's article and I notice that another link is the manor of Shalden, an old Mauduit manor which was held by serjeantry. In this case Robert and his son Thomas holding it by chamberlainry from the Hanslope Mauduits. Mason remarks that such a serjeantry would only be partible by royal permission.
Peter Stewart
2019-10-21 23:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
There is nothing unknown about the origins of Robert Mauduit of
Warminster who died in 1191 - he is documented by Mason as a younger son
of William II (died 1157/58) and Matilda of Hanslope.
Ah! That is interesting. Any chance you could note the documentary evidence? I was not aware of any.
14 H II, p. 161; 19 H II, p. 54; 20 H II, p. 29
_Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20_, ed. J. C. Davies (Pipe Rolls Soc., 1960), no. 598; R. W. Eyton, _Court, Household and Itinerary of King Henry II_ (1878), p. 193; _P.R. 22 Henry II_, p. 171.
The grant of Warminster to Robert in *Cartae Antiquae Rolls 11-20* is on
pp. 184-185, no. 598: "Sciatis me dedisse et presenti carta confirmasse
Roberto Mauduit Camerario meo pro seruicio suo Manerium de Wermenistr’
sibi et heredibus suis tenendum quicquid ibi habebam de me et heredibus
meis per seruicium unius militis."
Robert's connection to the Hanslope Mauduits was shown by Henry II's
writ of 1166/73 (misdated to ca December 1174 by Eyton) notifying the
grant of 100 acres of cropped land to Hugh of Hanslope, to which Robert
Mauduit was the only lay witness.
Thank you noting this, as I had not seen the significance of this mention of Hanslope. I also now happily gained access to Emma Mason's article and I notice that another link is the manor of Shalden, an old Mauduit manor which was held by serjeantry. In this case Robert and his son Thomas holding it by chamberlainry from the Hanslope Mauduits. Mason remarks that such a serjeantry would only be partible by royal permission.
The relationship of the Mauduits to the king seems to have been a little
different from that of other officials of similar rank - Eyton suggested
that treasury revenues were occasionally held in the Mauduit residence
at Hanslope, and this might partly explain why they could multiply their
roles of influence by the grant of minor chamberlainships to younger sons.

In this case Robert had evidently travelled to the court at Le Vaudreuil
in order to obtain a favour for one of the Hanslope knights, Hugh, in
the form of 100 acres of cleared land. He was the only lay witness in
that piece of royal business whereas in witnessing a second writ issued
at the same time & place the dean of Salisbury (who witnessed along with
Robert) was joined by a group of 11 lay lords headed by an earl, but not
including Robert Mauduit.

By the way, on the matter of William the Chamberlain of London, it seems
fairly clear that he outlived a wife who was dead by 1166 since he was
living in that year according to the earl of Gloucester's return in the
Red Book of the Exchequer. How long before 1166 this William's wife may
have died is uncertain - enough time anyway for a dispute to arise
concerning property over which she had held dower rights for a
prospective widowhood that didn't come about - but I think not nearly
long enough for William to have married again, had four sons by a second
wife and then died by 1170/71. Apart from this William's being only a
marginally eligible husband for a lesser Mauduit woman in the first
place, the rather messy chronology as indicated in the St Albans
narrative practically rules him out on its own.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
2019-10-21 06:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Perhaps the chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes has the
donor's given name written incorrectly as Adelicia rather than
Constancia. If an old copy was damaged and one could see only the
ending of the name, one might guess Adelicia rather than Constancia.
Does Salzman provide any more information about this document? I can
see just a snippet of Salzman's book on Google Books,
https://books.google.com/books?id=dN1AAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Adelicia+Malduit
This occurred to me too, but it seems a long shot and since my initial
speculation was misguided I wasn't inclined to try a second time.
Salzman translated the charter (as posted up-thread) but didn't
elucidate beyond that and dating it.
Certainly the names given for all four of Adelicia's sons were current
in the Pont de l'Arche family by the early-13th century. The IPM quoted
before shows that a Robert of Pont de l'Arche who died before 22
February 1246 had younger brothers named William and Ralph. William had
become a fugitive when accused of complicity in the murder of Henry
Clement in May 1235, and a Henry of Pont de l'Arche was a witness in
that affair (not described as his brother). This outlaw William and his
brothers Robert and Ralph were sons of another William, who was perhaps
the son of Constance Mauduit's son Robert. Another branch of their
family produced William of Pont de l'Arche who was bishop of Lisieux
from ca 1218 until 1250 - he also may have been a grandson of Constance
Mauduit.
However, it is a stretch to use this slender indication from common
names to posit a mistake by the Lewes cartularist in writing Adelicia
instead of Constance, especially given that the dating of the charter
suggests a chamberlain named William had died not long before and
apparently well after 1158 by when William of Pont de l'Arche had died
at an advanced age. Anyway, it would be unusual to request in a rent
transaction more than 10 years after someone's death for his anniversary
to be kept.
Robert Mauduit's daughter Constance was perhaps too young to be married
when he died in November 1120, but evidently old enough by 1130. She had
a much older husband, and engaged in adultery to his public humiliation
in the mid-1140s. We only know of one son of hers, Robert.
Evidence does turn up in unexpected places - for instance, the
Christchurch (Twynham) priory charter showing from an authentic document
that Robert of Pont de l'Arche's mother was named Constance, as in the
forged version of Henry I's charter relied on for this by Emma Mason.
The Mauduit family in the late-12th century is likely to have left more
such clues to be found, but with apologies I haven't the energy to
search very far.
Another possibility is that the chamberlainship of Adelicia's deceased
husband William may have had nothing to do with the Mauduits except for
the coincidence that he married a lady of this family - there was a
William the Chamberlain of London ("Camerarius Londonie, Willelm" in
*Domesday Descendants* p. 202) who succeeded his father of the same name
after the death of Robert, earl of Gloucester, in October 1147.
Chronologically as well as by name and title he may perhaps fit the
circumstances of the 1170/71 charter - though I stress this is merely
conjecture, as I do not know the names of his wife or any sons he may
have had.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-21 08:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Perhaps the chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes has the
donor's given name written incorrectly as Adelicia rather than
Constancia. If an old copy was damaged and one could see only the
ending of the name, one might guess Adelicia rather than Constancia.
Does Salzman provide any more information about this document? I can
see just a snippet of Salzman's book on Google Books,
https://books.google.com/books?id=dN1AAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Adelicia+Malduit
This occurred to me too, but it seems a long shot and since my initial
speculation was misguided I wasn't inclined to try a second time.
Salzman translated the charter (as posted up-thread) but didn't
elucidate beyond that and dating it.
Certainly the names given for all four of Adelicia's sons were current
in the Pont de l'Arche family by the early-13th century. The IPM
quoted before shows that a Robert of Pont de l'Arche who died before
22 February 1246 had younger brothers named William and Ralph. William
had become a fugitive when accused of complicity in the murder of
Henry Clement in May 1235, and a Henry of Pont de l'Arche was a
witness in that affair (not described as his brother). This outlaw
William and his brothers Robert and Ralph were sons of another
William, who was perhaps the son of Constance Mauduit's son Robert.
Another branch of their family produced William of Pont de l'Arche who
was bishop of Lisieux from ca 1218 until 1250 - he also may have been
a grandson of Constance Mauduit.
However, it is a stretch to use this slender indication from common
names to posit a mistake by the Lewes cartularist in writing Adelicia
instead of Constance, especially given that the dating of the charter
suggests a chamberlain named William had died not long before and
apparently well after 1158 by when William of Pont de l'Arche had died
at an advanced age. Anyway, it would be unusual to request in a rent
transaction more than 10 years after someone's death for his
anniversary to be kept.
Robert Mauduit's daughter Constance was perhaps too young to be
married when he died in November 1120, but evidently old enough by
1130. She had a much older husband, and engaged in adultery to his
public humiliation in the mid-1140s. We only know of one son of hers,
Robert.
Evidence does turn up in unexpected places - for instance, the
Christchurch (Twynham) priory charter showing from an authentic
document that Robert of Pont de l'Arche's mother was named Constance,
as in the forged version of Henry I's charter relied on for this by
Emma Mason. The Mauduit family in the late-12th century is likely to
have left more such clues to be found, but with apologies I haven't
the energy to search very far.
Another possibility is that the chamberlainship of Adelicia's deceased
husband William may have had nothing to do with the Mauduits except for
the coincidence that he married a lady of this family - there was a
William the Chamberlain of London ("Camerarius Londonie, Willelm" in
*Domesday Descendants* p. 202) who succeeded his father of the same name
after the death of Robert, earl of Gloucester, in October 1147.
Chronologically as well as by name and title he may perhaps fit the
circumstances of the 1170/71 charter - though I stress this is merely
conjecture, as I do not know the names of his wife or any sons he may
have had.
Strike this - another worthless conjecture: the widow of William the
Chamberlain of London died while Robert de Gorron was abbot of St
Albans, which means by 1166.

Also, the statement by Keats-Rohan that this William succeeded his
father "after the death of Robert, earl of Gloucester, in 1147" is far
from certain, as the chronological indicators in Thomas Walsingham's
'Gesta abbatum monasterii S. Albani' are confused.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-17 23:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
He married Isabel, daughter of Simon de St Liz II, earl of Huntingdon,
as noted before by Jan and in CP vol. 6 p. 643 note (k).
Ah yes.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
It seems no one is questioning the documentation offers concerning the death of William II and therefore the break between William II and William III.
I can't follow what you are getting at with this.
Just a check that we really see that evidence as correct. 12th century evidence of inheritances is hard to find. I am presuming there is no mistake in Eyton on this point.
The William II identified as the husband of Matilda de Hanslope was dead
ca 1160 according Eyton and died 1157/58 according to Mason.

His purported son, Eyton's William III, whose death by 1171 was assumed
from the Lewes charter, is a non-person for Mason.

Eyton's William IV (i.e. the father-in-law of Isabel Basset) was living
in 1197 according to him, the same man as Mason's William III who died
in 1194 according to her.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Obviously Ralf and Henry Mauduit are now to be deleted as there was only one document for them.
Provisionally to be deleted from the Mauduit family but perhaps to be
included in the Pont de l'Arche family.
OK, that is what I understood.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Also, the exact connection of Robert d. 1120 and Robert d. 1191 to this family remains unconfirmed? Proposing that they are both probably brothers of Williams is still just a "best guess". Or does anyone see any other possible conclusion?
I'm not sure where this is coming from - Robert who died either
in 1120 (in the White Ship disaster) or in 1129/30 (there is some
question remaining over deductions on this point) was the elder brother
of William II who married Matilda of Hanslope, while Robert (of
Warminster) who died in 1191 was a son of William II and Matilda.
Eyton marked the affiliation of this Robert with his brother William as uncertain.
Mason doesn't retain the uncertainty of Eyton on this relationship. She
also expresses no doubt that Robert died in the White Ship in 1120, but
Geoffrey White wrote in 'Financial Administration under Henry I',
*Transactions of the RHS* (1925): "Thus the Treasury was now
administered by Herbert the Chamberlain and Robert Mauduit, who
continued in office during the greater part of the reign, and died
within a short time of each other, probably in II29 or II30, although
Dr. Farrer includes Robert Mauduit amongst the persons drowned in the
wreck of the "White Ship" in II20; but this, as I have pointed out
elsewhere [in Notes & Queries], is due to confusion between the
Latinised forms " Maledoctus " (Mauduit) and " Malconductus " (Mauconduit)."
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Adeliza or Constance who married William de Pont de l'Arche was the
daughter and heiress of William II's elder brother Robert; hence the
inheritance of the chamberlainship by William de Pont de l'Arche in her
right, that was later transferred to the Mauduit male line rather than
passing to her son Robert.
And lastly then what about, also a chamberlain, who died 1191 or so. Is his affiliation with the other Mauduits now (more) uncertain when we ignore the Adeliza charter? Or is there perhaps more evidence anyone knows of?
Mason wrote in 'The Mauduits and their chamberlainship of the Exchequer'
(1976) p. 6: "William (III)'s youngest brother Robert, founder of the
Mauduit family of Warminster (Wilts.) is first recorded as a royal
official c. 1167-8 ... Henry II described Robert as his chamberlain when
he granted him the manor of Warminster, to hold as one kinght's fee.
Robert was certainly a royal chamberlain by July 1175, and the grant of
Warminster was probably made a few months later ... In 1175 or 1176,
Robert also received the manor of Shalden from his eldest brother.
Possibly the less important of William's two chamberlainships was
granted to him at the same time, and Robert may have deputized for
William in the official duties of this minor office".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-18 00:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
He married Isabel, daughter of Simon de St Liz II, earl of Huntingdon,
as noted before by Jan and in CP vol. 6 p. 643 note (k).
Ah yes.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
It seems no one is questioning the documentation offers concerning
the death of William II and therefore the break between William II
and William III.
I can't follow what you are getting at with this.
Just a check that we really see that evidence as correct. 12th century
evidence of inheritances is hard to find. I am presuming there is no
mistake in Eyton on this point.
The William II identified as the husband of Matilda de Hanslope was dead
ca 1160 according Eyton and died 1157/58 according to Mason.
His purported son, Eyton's William III, whose death by 1171 was assumed
from the Lewes charter, is a non-person for Mason.
Eyton's William IV (i.e. the father-in-law of Isabel Basset) was living
in 1197 according to him, the same man as Mason's William III who died
in 1194 according to her.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Obviously Ralf and Henry Mauduit are now to be deleted as there was
only one document for them.
Provisionally to be deleted from the Mauduit family but perhaps to be
included in the Pont de l'Arche family.
OK, that is what I understood.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Also, the exact connection of Robert d. 1120 and Robert d. 1191 to
this family remains unconfirmed? Proposing that they are both
probably brothers of Williams is still just a "best guess". Or does
anyone see any other possible conclusion?
I'm not sure where this is coming from - Robert who died either
in 1120 (in the White Ship disaster) or in 1129/30 (there is some
question remaining over deductions on this point) was the elder brother
of William II who married Matilda of Hanslope, while Robert (of
Warminster) who died in 1191 was a son of William II and Matilda.
Eyton marked the affiliation of this Robert with his brother William as uncertain.
Mason doesn't retain the uncertainty of Eyton on this relationship. She
also expresses no doubt that Robert died in the White Ship in 1120, but
Geoffrey White wrote in 'Financial Administration under Henry I',
*Transactions of the RHS* (1925): "Thus the Treasury was now
administered by Herbert the Chamberlain and Robert Mauduit, who
continued in office during the greater part of the reign, and died
within a short time of each other, probably in II29 or II30, although
Dr. Farrer includes Robert Mauduit amongst the persons drowned in the
wreck of the "White Ship" in II20; but this, as I have pointed out
elsewhere [in Notes & Queries], is due to confusion between the
Latinised forms " Maledoctus " (Mauduit) and " Malconductus "
(Mauconduit)."
I should have looked into this further - White's reservation is not
soundly-based. Orderic wrote that "Rodbertus Malconductus" was one of
the victims drowned in the White Ship, but this was evidently just a
scribal slip for "Maledoctus" since Symeon of Durham named the same
person as "Rodbertus Malduit".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-18 02:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Perhaps it is however correct to say that Eyton's interpretation is also still possible?
Grant by Henry I to his chamberlain William Mauduit (II) of the land of Michael of Hanslope (Bucks), since Michael in his lifetime made the king his heir, and gift of Michael's daughter Matilda to William in Marriage. [August 1131 x July 1133 (? August 1131)]
Confirmation by Earl Simon (de St. Liz (III) of Northampton) to the king's Chamberlain William Mauduit (III) and his wife Isabel, of the lands and knights' fees which his father, Earl Simon (II), gave them in free marriage. [c. 1158 x 74]
Mason also states (in the 1976 article, p. 3) that the chamberlainship of William Mauduit (II) was a new creation, distinct from that previously in the Mauduit family which had been granted to William de Pont de l'Arche when he married the daughter of Robert Mauduit (I). William Mauduit (II) and William de Pont de l'Arche were chamberlains at the same time and William de Pont de l'Arche lived into the 1140s or early 1150s. (For information about William de Pont de l'Arche, Mason cites K. R. Potter, ed., _Gesta Stephani_ (1955), p. 5, 100-101, and _Historia Novella_ (1955), p. 15 by the same editor.)
Also notice that Robert is the first son listed by Adeliza Mauduit, suggesting that Robert, not William, was her oldest son and all of them were alive in 1170. Adeliza may have used her maiden surname because her husband had had his position as chamberlain because it had descended to her. He had it for life but it didn't descend to their son Robert.
Peter, thanks for clarifying that the surname of William (Adeliza's husband) was an insertion by Eyton in the 1170 document. That makes all the difference in its interpretation.
It was surprising to me when I read Eyton's text of the 1170/71 charter that Adeliza would have called herself Mauduit if she had been the widow of a Mauduit rather than born one herself - I haven't researched the question specifically, but my impression is that in the late-12th century Anglo-Norman women didn't usually take their husbands' surnames for life (if at all).
In any case, there remains the question of whether William de Pont de l'Arche's Mauduit wife was named Adeliza or Constance (unless she had both names). although Emma Mason appears to overlook it, I think the charter printed by Eyton may be stronger evidence on this point than the forged version of Henry I's charter inserting the name Constance for her which is not given in more authentic versions.
But without definite evidence that the Adeliza of the Lewes charter was actually the Mauduit wife (widow by 1170/71) of William de Pont de l'Arche (and I can't find any) this is just a hunch on my part. The Pont de l'Arche family doesn't seem to be well-documented - the best-known member was probably the William who became bishop of Lisieux in the early-13th century, perhaps a grandson of Adeliza. The published cartulary of Notre-Dame de Bonport, where this family might be expected to occur, is very poorly indexed but nothing useful jumps out at me and nothing comes up from an initial search at http://ufrhss.unicaen.fr/scripta/. Others may be luckier.
There are two interesting entries in *Inquisitions post mortem* vol. 1 showing that (along with Robert and William) Ralph was a name used in a later generation of the Pont de l'Arche family (i.p.m. in 1246/47), in which one of the wives was named Constance:

p. 18 no. 76, Robert de Pont del Arche alias de Ponte Arche: "Ralph, his brother, is his next heir, after William de Ponte Arche, who was lately outlawed."

p. 36 no. 149, Robert de Ponte Arche: "Neweton manor (full extent given) with the dower which Constance late the wife of Robert de Ponte Arche has."

It seems a possibility that the forger of the "pretended original" of Henry I's charter may have taken the name Constance from a record belonging to this generation, although it was certainly a common-enough name to have occurred for several wives in one family over a century or more.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-18 02:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Perhaps it is however correct to say that Eyton's interpretation is also still possible?
Grant by Henry I to his chamberlain William Mauduit (II) of the land of Michael of Hanslope (Bucks), since Michael in his lifetime made the king his heir, and gift of Michael's daughter Matilda to William in Marriage. [August 1131 x July 1133 (? August 1131)]
Confirmation by Earl Simon (de St. Liz (III) of Northampton) to the king's Chamberlain William Mauduit (III) and his wife Isabel, of the lands and knights' fees which his father, Earl Simon (II), gave them in free marriage. [c. 1158 x 74]
Mason also states (in the 1976 article, p. 3) that the chamberlainship of William Mauduit (II) was a new creation, distinct from that previously in the Mauduit family which had been granted to William de Pont de l'Arche when he married the daughter of Robert Mauduit (I). William Mauduit (II) and William de Pont de l'Arche were chamberlains at the same time and William de Pont de l'Arche lived into the 1140s or early 1150s. (For information about William de Pont de l'Arche, Mason cites K. R. Potter, ed., _Gesta Stephani_ (1955), p. 5, 100-101, and _Historia Novella_ (1955), p. 15 by the same editor.)
Also notice that Robert is the first son listed by Adeliza Mauduit, suggesting that Robert, not William, was her oldest son and all of them were alive in 1170. Adeliza may have used her maiden surname because her husband had had his position as chamberlain because it had descended to her. He had it for life but it didn't descend to their son Robert.
Peter, thanks for clarifying that the surname of William (Adeliza's husband) was an insertion by Eyton in the 1170 document. That makes all the difference in its interpretation.
It was surprising to me when I read Eyton's text of the 1170/71 charter that Adeliza would have called herself Mauduit if she had been the widow of a Mauduit rather than born one herself - I haven't researched the question specifically, but my impression is that in the late-12th century Anglo-Norman women didn't usually take their husbands' surnames for life (if at all).
In any case, there remains the question of whether William de Pont de l'Arche's Mauduit wife was named Adeliza or Constance (unless she had both names). although Emma Mason appears to overlook it, I think the charter printed by Eyton may be stronger evidence on this point than the forged version of Henry I's charter inserting the name Constance for her which is not given in more authentic versions.
But without definite evidence that the Adeliza of the Lewes charter was actually the Mauduit wife (widow by 1170/71) of William de Pont de l'Arche (and I can't find any) this is just a hunch on my part. The Pont de l'Arche family doesn't seem to be well-documented - the best-known member was probably the William who became bishop of Lisieux in the early-13th century, perhaps a grandson of Adeliza. The published cartulary of Notre-Dame de Bonport, where this family might be expected to occur, is very poorly indexed but nothing useful jumps out at me and nothing comes up from an initial search at http://ufrhss.unicaen.fr/scripta/. Others may be luckier.
Make that "i.p.m. in 1245/46".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-10-18 03:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
p. 18 no. 76, Robert de Pont del Arche alias de Ponte Arche: "Ralph, his brother, is his next heir, after William de Ponte Arche, who was lately outlawed."
p. 36 no. 149, Robert de Ponte Arche: "Neweton manor (full extent given) with the dower which Constance late the wife of Robert de Ponte Arche has."
The name Henry also occurs in the family around the same time - a Henry
of Pont de l'Arche gave evidence following the murder of Henry Clement
in 1235.

Onomastics provide only limited value as circumstantial evidence, but it
is perhaps fairly uncommon to find four names of brothers in a charter
of 1170/71 and then the same four names occurring in a family within a
lifespan later.

Peter Stewart
Loading...