Discussion:
Regarding William Marshal, 4th Earl of Pembroke kinship with William II de Tancarville (Giffard connection?)
Add Reply
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-15 03:59:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Hello Newsgroup,

Excuse me if this particular possibility has been discussed before.

I have been researching the ancestry of William Marshal, 4th Earl of Pembroke, and found an interesting possibility as to the relationship between the William II de Tancarville and William Marshal, and between the Marshal and the Giffards of Longueville. From the History of William Marshal we know that William was sent in his youth by his father John to live with William II de Tancarville, and that he was their 1st cousin. I don’t believe that the relationship was through Wiliam’s mother Sybil de Salisbury, but through John.

“The Marshal decided
that he would send William
to Tancarville in Normandy,
to be with the Chamberlain, who had never brought shame
upon his family line at any time;
Indeed, he set great store by it and kept its reputation high.
He was their first cousin.”
(Lines 743-749 from The History of William Marshal)

It appears that William I Tancarville (grandfather of William II Tancarville) married Mathilde d’Arques, whose parents were William d’Arques (Giffard), vicomte d’Arques and Beatrix Malet. He was the son of Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard and _____ de Rouen dit d’Arques (daughter of Gosselin de Rouen, vicomte d’Arques). Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard was the brother of Walter I Giffard, Lord of Longueville and Earl of Buckingham (Geoffroi and Walter sons of Osbern de Bolbec). Further, Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard had at least one other son named Giselbert (Gilbert), and possibly another Osbern d’Arques (who had a son named Giselbert d’Arques that was Bishop of Evreux).

"Guillelmus et Gislebertus filii Godefredi Archarum vicecomitis" donated land in Montvilla to Sainte-Trinité de Rouen dated 1059 (Rouen Sainte-Trinité, XXV, p. 433.)

We know that William Marshal’s grandfather was named Gilbert Giffard, but it has been assumed that there is likely no connection between the Marshal’s grandfather Gilbert and the Giffard family related to Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville and Earl of Buckingham, and that the surname was likely just in relation to the nickname 'chubby cheeks'. Perhaps there is some sort of a connection between Giselbert (Gilbert) the son of Geoffroi Giffard (brother of Walter I Giffard) --or someone else in the Geoffroi Giffard and ___ de Rouen dit d’Arques family group-- and the Marshal’s grandfather Gilbert Giffard. Chronologically, a father son relationship is plausible. Obviously at this point there is no concrete evidence linking Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ to Gilbert (Giselbert) Giffard (d’Arques), his siblings or the Giffards of Longueville-sur-Scie, but I thought it was worth bringing forth for discussion and as a possible avenue for further research.

We also know that when William Marshal was given the marriage of Isabel de Clare by King Richard I ‘the Lionheart’ shortly after the death of Henry II, that William rode to secure (on his way to England) Isabel’s holdings in Normandy, one of which was Longueville-sur-Scie, which the Giffards were lords of, and that in dispute (with the Earl of Hertford I believe) of his claim on the Giffard Lordship, that he purchased half, taking Longueville-sur-Scie as his portion. If Longueville-sur-Scie was the place of his patrilineal ancestral origin in Normandy, it would make even more sense that he would go to the length he did to retain his Norman holdings of which it was a part, by paying homage to the French king (which infuriated King John) in order to retain them.

A hypothetical connection between William II de Tancarville and John fitz Gilbert ‘the Marshal’ that would be a 2nd Cousin 1 removed kinship could be:

William II de Tancarville → Rabel de Tancarville → Mathilde d’Arques (wife of William I de Tancarville) → Guillaume d’Arques (Giffard), vicomte d’Arques → Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard

John fitz Gilbert ‘the Marshal’ → Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ → ??? maybe Gilbert (Giselbert) Giffard (d’Arques) or a sibling ??? → Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard

As mentioned above, obviously at this point there is no concrete evidence linking Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ to Gilbert (Giselbert) Giffard (d’Arques), his siblings or the Giffards of Longueville-sur-Scie, but I thought the hypothetical theory was worth discussing and maybe worthy of further research. If anyone can chime in on this it would be greatly appreciated.

Also, if anyone knows of the names of any noted kinsmen of William Marshal that cannot be linked to his family tree at this point I would welcome them.

Thanks,

Jordan Vandenberg.
Andrew Lancaster
2019-09-15 18:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is what historian David Crouch says in his book about William Marshall (pp.22-23):

"The *History* claims that at some time, probably in the early 1160s, John contacted his 'cousin german' William de Tancarville, the Chamberlain of Normandy (often known as 'the chamberlain of Tancarville'), and arranged that William should cross to Normandy as a *gentil home* (a man of family). There is no other evidence that John Marshal and the Tancarvilles were related, and it may well be that the History got it wrong. There *is* evidence that the relationship was in fact between the Salisbury family and the Tancarvilles. So it might well be that William's fostering in Normandy was made possible by his mother's family, even if the suggestion came from his father."
Jan Wolfe
2019-09-15 20:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Here is the passage (lines 743-749) from Paul Meyer's rendition of the poem, https://archive.org/details/lhistoiredeguill01meyeuoft/page/28

Li Mareschals se porpensa
Que Guillaume en enverra
E[n] Normandie a Tankarvile
Al Chamberlenc kui pas n'avile
Son lingnage ne jor ne ore,
Einz l'eime & essauce & enore ;
E il ert lor cosins germains.

Did cousin germain mean then what it does today (first cousin)?
Does "il" (or he in the English translation) in line 749 refer to young William or to William's father John or to William de Tancarville?
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-15 21:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Here is the passage (lines 743-749) from Paul Meyer's rendition of the poem, https://archive.org/details/lhistoiredeguill01meyeuoft/page/28
Li Mareschals se porpensa
Que Guillaume en enverra
E[n] Normandie a Tankarvile
Al Chamberlenc kui pas n'avile
Son lingnage ne jor ne ore,
Einz l'eime & essauce & enore ;
E il ert lor cosins germains.
Did cousin germain mean then what it does today (first cousin)?
Does "il" (or he in the English translation) in line 749 refer to young William or to William's father John or to William de Tancarville?
Hi Jan,
The english translation I provided in the original post of the lines from the History of William Marshal are from my copy of the History of William Marshal by translated by AJ Holden, S. Gregory and David Crouch. The translation in that edition put out by the Anglo-Norman text Society should be pretty accurate. Line 749 read, "He was their first cousin." So their interpretation seems to align/support that of Meyer's.
Peter Stewart
2019-09-16 00:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Here is the passage (lines 743-749) from Paul Meyer's rendition of the poem, https://archive.org/details/lhistoiredeguill01meyeuoft/page/28
Li Mareschals se porpensa
Que Guillaume en enverra
E[n] Normandie a Tankarvile
Al Chamberlenc kui pas n'avile
Son lingnage ne jor ne ore,
Einz l'eime & essauce & enore ;
E il ert lor cosins germains.
Did cousin germain mean then what it does today (first cousin)?
Does "il" (or he in the English translation) in line 749 refer to young William or to William's father John or to William de Tancarville?
To the chamberlain, William de Tancarville, as he is the subject in this
context and is said to be "their" (lor) cousin meaning the cousin of
John the marshal and his son William.

Cousin-german could mean cousin on the father's side or a first cousin
on either side, especially with a versifier's license of expression - in
this case it must encompass a cousinship at least once removed since it
is referred to a father and son in common.

Peter Stewart
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-16 01:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter,

Thanks again for the response.
To clarify what you are saying, the relationship if on the father's side given the phrasing cousin-german could mean a relationship more distant than first cousin, but would be limited to first cousin if on the mother's side?
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Here is the passage (lines 743-749) from Paul Meyer's rendition of the poem, https://archive.org/details/lhistoiredeguill01meyeuoft/page/28
Li Mareschals se porpensa
Que Guillaume en enverra
E[n] Normandie a Tankarvile
Al Chamberlenc kui pas n'avile
Son lingnage ne jor ne ore,
Einz l'eime & essauce & enore ;
E il ert lor cosins germains.
Did cousin germain mean then what it does today (first cousin)?
Does "il" (or he in the English translation) in line 749 refer to young William or to William's father John or to William de Tancarville?
To the chamberlain, William de Tancarville, as he is the subject in this
context and is said to be "their" (lor) cousin meaning the cousin of
John the marshal and his son William.
Cousin-german could mean cousin on the father's side or a first cousin
on either side, especially with a versifier's license of expression - in
this case it must encompass a cousinship at least once removed since it
is referred to a father and son in common.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-09-16 01:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks again for the response.
To clarify what you are saying, the relationship if on the father's side given the phrasing cousin-german could mean a relationship more distant than first cousin, but would be limited to first cousin if on the mother's side?
Not necessarily - I don't think we can take modern definitions as
binding on medieval writers, much less in verse where the last word in
"E il ert lor cosins germains" might have been tacked on for scansion
rather than strict sense. Here the writer (assuming he knew the facts
precisely in the first place) may have been referring somewhat loosely
to a cousinship by blood not marriage, for instance.

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-09-16 04:37:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks again for the response.
To clarify what you are saying, the relationship if on the father's side given the phrasing cousin-german could mean a relationship more distant than first cousin, but would be limited to first cousin if on the mother's side?
Not necessarily - I don't think we can take modern definitions as
binding on medieval writers, much less in verse where the last word in
"E il ert lor cosins germains" might have been tacked on for scansion
rather than strict sense. Here the writer (assuming he knew the facts
precisely in the first place) may have been referring somewhat loosely
to a cousinship by blood not marriage, for instance.
Just to amplify what Peter said, one should bear in mind that it is not uncommon in such poetry to find relationships 'improved' in the telling, represented as closer than they were.

taf
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-16 05:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks Todd,

I wasn't sure about how literal to take what the History said, and you and Peter, Jan and Andrew have been a help in interpreting that.

The proposed hypothetical relationship that I mentioned in the OP would be that of a 2nd cousin 1 removed between John fitz Gilbert 'the Marshal' and William II de Tancarville. Not quite as close as the poet mentioned, but fairly close. I would love to know with a high degree of confidence whether or not the Gilbert Gibart in the Domesday Book is the same person as the Marshal's grandfather Gilbert Giffard, or whether he is his great-grandfather and that Gilbert's father.

Any ideas of sources where one might look to find clues regarding Gilbert Gibart from Domesday or Gilbert Giffard (d'Arques) the son of Geoffroi Giffard (d'Arques)?
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks again for the response.
To clarify what you are saying, the relationship if on the father's side given the phrasing cousin-german could mean a relationship more distant than first cousin, but would be limited to first cousin if on the mother's side?
Not necessarily - I don't think we can take modern definitions as
binding on medieval writers, much less in verse where the last word in
"E il ert lor cosins germains" might have been tacked on for scansion
rather than strict sense. Here the writer (assuming he knew the facts
precisely in the first place) may have been referring somewhat loosely
to a cousinship by blood not marriage, for instance.
Just to amplify what Peter said, one should bear in mind that it is not uncommon in such poetry to find relationships 'improved' in the telling, represented as closer than they were.
taf
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-15 21:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
"The *History* claims that at some time, probably in the early 1160s, John contacted his 'cousin german' William de Tancarville, the Chamberlain of Normandy (often known as 'the chamberlain of Tancarville'), and arranged that William should cross to Normandy as a *gentil home* (a man of family). There is no other evidence that John Marshal and the Tancarvilles were related, and it may well be that the History got it wrong. There *is* evidence that the relationship was in fact between the Salisbury family and the Tancarvilles. So it might well be that William's fostering in Normandy was made possible by his mother's family, even if the suggestion came from his father."
Crouch suggests that the relationship could be with the Salisbury family, because of the fact that Edward of Salisbury appeared in 2 charters with William I de Tancarville, and suggests that there was perhaps a marriage between a daughter, sister or aunt of William I de Tancarville, but such a marriage hasn't been discovered to my knowledge.
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-15 22:03:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
According to the Domesday Book, a Gilbert (Giselbert) Gib(b)ard (Gibart) ‘the Marshal’ held property in both Wiltshire and Oxfordshire. The details of the entries are below.


WINTERBOURNE [MONKTON]
Hundred: Selkley
County: Wiltshire
Total population: 32 households (quite large).
Total tax assessed: 25 geld units (very large).
Head of manor: Winterbourne Monkton.
Taxable units: Taxable value 25 geld units.
Value: Value to lord in 1086 £20. Value to lord c. 1070 £12.
Households: 17 villagers. 8 smallholders. 7 slaves.
Ploughland: 15 ploughlands (land for). 4 lord's plough teams. 7 men's plough teams.
Other resources: 10.0 lord's lands. Meadow 6 acres. Pasture 100 acres.
Lords in 1066: Glastonbury (St Mary), abbey of; Ordgar.
Overlord in 1066: Glastonbury (St Mary), abbey of.
Lords in 1086: Gilbert; Glastonbury (St Mary), abbey of.
Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Glastonbury (St Mary), abbey of.
Phillimore reference: 7,8


GARSINGTON
Hundred: Headington
County: Oxfordshire
Total population: 25 households (quite large).
Total tax assessed: 7.5 ambiguous units; 2.5 geld units (very large).
Taxable units: Taxable value 7.5 ambiguous units.
Value: Value to lord in 1066 £4. Value to lord in 1086 £5.
Households: 6 villagers. 9 smallholders. 2 slaves.
Ploughland: 6 ploughlands (land for). 2 lord's plough teams. 3 men's plough teams.
Other resources: 1.0 new lands. Meadow 12 acres. Woodland 2 * 1 furlongs.
Lord in 1066: Abingdon (St Mary), abbey of.
Lord in 1086: Gilbert (the marshal).
Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Abingdon (St Mary), abbey of.
Phillimore reference: 9,7

***Entries taken from opendomesday.org created by Professor J.J.N. Palmer and team, University of Hull

In Historia Monasterii de Abingdon, volume 2 on page 5 it states:
“Gillebertus Marescal, vii. hidas et dimidium in Gersentune; et Sueting, avus Matthiae, in Wateleia i. hidam et dimidium pro servitio unius militis.”


In David Crouch’s book William Marshal: Knighthood, War and Chivalry, 1147-1219, 2nd Edition, he states on page14 that:

“Apart from these possessions, John and his father were able, like other royal ministers, to pick up pieces of land from powerful barons who thought them worthy of attracting into their orbits; so John had scattered lands in Herefordshire of the Candos family, in Oxfordshire of the Arsic family, and in Wiltshire of the Salisbury family. There were fees besides from the bishops of Exeter, Winchester and Worcester, and the abbots of Glastonbury and Abingdon.”

The two Domesday entries above to Gilbert ‘the Marshal’ are the same as the fees mentioned by Crouch regarding the abbots of Glastonbury and Abingdon, which suggests that the Gilbert ‘the Marshal’ found in Domesday for these two entries is likely directly related to William Marshal. Chronologically, it is most likely that the Gilbert ‘the Marshal’ listed in Domesday would be the father of the Marshal’s grandfather Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ and not the same person. William’s father was likely born about 1110 making it most likely that Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ (William’s grandfather) was probably born between 1070 and 1085, which would make it unlikely (but not impossible he could have been closer to 50 or John his son could have been born slightly earlier) that he is the same as the Gilbert ‘the Marshal’ listed in Domesday.
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Hello Newsgroup,
Excuse me if this particular possibility has been discussed before.
I have been researching the ancestry of William Marshal, 4th Earl of Pembroke, and found an interesting possibility as to the relationship between the William II de Tancarville and William Marshal, and between the Marshal and the Giffards of Longueville. From the History of William Marshal we know that William was sent in his youth by his father John to live with William II de Tancarville, and that he was their 1st cousin. I don’t believe that the relationship was through Wiliam’s mother Sybil de Salisbury, but through John.
“The Marshal decided
that he would send William
to Tancarville in Normandy,
to be with the Chamberlain, who had never brought shame
upon his family line at any time;
Indeed, he set great store by it and kept its reputation high.
He was their first cousin.”
(Lines 743-749 from The History of William Marshal)
It appears that William I Tancarville (grandfather of William II Tancarville) married Mathilde d’Arques, whose parents were William d’Arques (Giffard), vicomte d’Arques and Beatrix Malet. He was the son of Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard and _____ de Rouen dit d’Arques (daughter of Gosselin de Rouen, vicomte d’Arques). Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard was the brother of Walter I Giffard, Lord of Longueville and Earl of Buckingham (Geoffroi and Walter sons of Osbern de Bolbec). Further, Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard had at least one other son named Giselbert (Gilbert), and possibly another Osbern d’Arques (who had a son named Giselbert d’Arques that was Bishop of Evreux).
"Guillelmus et Gislebertus filii Godefredi Archarum vicecomitis" donated land in Montvilla to Sainte-Trinité de Rouen dated 1059 (Rouen Sainte-Trinité, XXV, p. 433.)
We know that William Marshal’s grandfather was named Gilbert Giffard, but it has been assumed that there is likely no connection between the Marshal’s grandfather Gilbert and the Giffard family related to Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville and Earl of Buckingham, and that the surname was likely just in relation to the nickname 'chubby cheeks'. Perhaps there is some sort of a connection between Giselbert (Gilbert) the son of Geoffroi Giffard (brother of Walter I Giffard) --or someone else in the Geoffroi Giffard and ___ de Rouen dit d’Arques family group-- and the Marshal’s grandfather Gilbert Giffard. Chronologically, a father son relationship is plausible. Obviously at this point there is no concrete evidence linking Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ to Gilbert (Giselbert) Giffard (d’Arques), his siblings or the Giffards of Longueville-sur-Scie, but I thought it was worth bringing forth for discussion and as a possible avenue for further research.
We also know that when William Marshal was given the marriage of Isabel de Clare by King Richard I ‘the Lionheart’ shortly after the death of Henry II, that William rode to secure (on his way to England) Isabel’s holdings in Normandy, one of which was Longueville-sur-Scie, which the Giffards were lords of, and that in dispute (with the Earl of Hertford I believe) of his claim on the Giffard Lordship, that he purchased half, taking Longueville-sur-Scie as his portion. If Longueville-sur-Scie was the place of his patrilineal ancestral origin in Normandy, it would make even more sense that he would go to the length he did to retain his Norman holdings of which it was a part, by paying homage to the French king (which infuriated King John) in order to retain them.
William II de Tancarville → Rabel de Tancarville → Mathilde d’Arques (wife of William I de Tancarville) → Guillaume d’Arques (Giffard), vicomte d’Arques → Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard
John fitz Gilbert ‘the Marshal’ → Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ → ??? maybe Gilbert (Giselbert) Giffard (d’Arques) or a sibling ??? → Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard
As mentioned above, obviously at this point there is no concrete evidence linking Gilbert Giffard ‘the Marshal’ to Gilbert (Giselbert) Giffard (d’Arques), his siblings or the Giffards of Longueville-sur-Scie, but I thought the hypothetical theory was worth discussing and maybe worthy of further research. If anyone can chime in on this it would be greatly appreciated.
Also, if anyone knows of the names of any noted kinsmen of William Marshal that cannot be linked to his family tree at this point I would welcome them.
Thanks,
Jordan Vandenberg.
Peter Stewart
2019-09-16 00:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Hello Newsgroup,
Excuse me if this particular possibility has been discussed before.
I have been researching the ancestry of William Marshal, 4th Earl of Pembroke, and found an interesting possibility as to the relationship between the William II de Tancarville and William Marshal, and between the Marshal and the Giffards of Longueville. From the History of William Marshal we know that William was sent in his youth by his father John to live with William II de Tancarville, and that he was their 1st cousin. I don’t believe that the relationship was through Wiliam’s mother Sybil de Salisbury, but through John.
“The Marshal decided
that he would send William
to Tancarville in Normandy,
to be with the Chamberlain, who had never brought shame
upon his family line at any time;
Indeed, he set great store by it and kept its reputation high.
He was their first cousin.”
(Lines 743-749 from The History of William Marshal)
It appears that William I Tancarville (grandfather of William II Tancarville) married Mathilde d’Arques, whose parents were William d’Arques (Giffard), vicomte d’Arques and Beatrix Malet. He was the son of Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard and _____ de Rouen dit d’Arques (daughter of Gosselin de Rouen, vicomte d’Arques). Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard was the brother of Walter I Giffard, Lord of Longueville and Earl of Buckingham (Geoffroi and Walter sons of Osbern de Bolbec). Further, Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard had at least one other son named Giselbert (Gilbert), and possibly another Osbern d’Arques (who had a son named Giselbert d’Arques that was Bishop of Evreux).
"Guillelmus et Gislebertus filii Godefredi Archarum vicecomitis" donated land in Montvilla to Sainte-Trinité de Rouen dated 1059 (Rouen Sainte-Trinité, XXV, p. 433.)
For the umpteenth time, it is NEVER worthwhile taking ANY information
from the Medieval Lands database without verifying it: in this case,
Osbern de Arcis was NOT the father of a fictitious personage called
"Gislebert d'Arques that was bishop of Evreux".

As Keats-Rohan stated in Domesday People, Osbern de Arcis was dead by
1115/18 when his son William had succeeded him. He could not have been
the father Gilbert fitz Osbern, who was elected bishop in 1071 when he
was already an archdeacon. This man was Gilbert 'la Grue' (or 'le
Grand'), who is often said to have been the son of Duchess Gunnora's
nephew Osbern de Crépon, seneschal of Normandy, or of his son William de
Breteuil, earl of Hereford. However, there is no proof for this
connection either, that is based on nothing more than Orderic Vitalis
once referring to the bishop as "Gislebertus Osberni filius". Bishop
Gilbert must have been about as old as Osbern de Arcis, if not older,
and certainly cannot have been his son.

Peter Stewart
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-16 01:00:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter,

Thanks for the clarification about Osbern d'Arcis and Gilbert fitz Osbern who was elected bishop in 1071 and for the heads up about Med Lands database.

Any information/insight on the family group of Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard (alias) d'Arques who was brother to Walter I Giffard, seigneur de Longueville, Earl of Buckingham would be most welcome. The Tancarville/Giffard connection through the marriage between Mathilde d'Arques (daughter of William d'Arques, vicomte d'Arques) and William I de Tancarville seems like a possibility as far as the kinship between the William II Tancarville and the Marshal family.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Hello Newsgroup,
Excuse me if this particular possibility has been discussed before.
I have been researching the ancestry of William Marshal, 4th Earl of Pembroke, and found an interesting possibility as to the relationship between the William II de Tancarville and William Marshal, and between the Marshal and the Giffards of Longueville. From the History of William Marshal we know that William was sent in his youth by his father John to live with William II de Tancarville, and that he was their 1st cousin. I don’t believe that the relationship was through Wiliam’s mother Sybil de Salisbury, but through John.
“The Marshal decided
that he would send William
to Tancarville in Normandy,
to be with the Chamberlain, who had never brought shame
upon his family line at any time;
Indeed, he set great store by it and kept its reputation high.
He was their first cousin.”
(Lines 743-749 from The History of William Marshal)
It appears that William I Tancarville (grandfather of William II Tancarville) married Mathilde d’Arques, whose parents were William d’Arques (Giffard), vicomte d’Arques and Beatrix Malet. He was the son of Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard and _____ de Rouen dit d’Arques (daughter of Gosselin de Rouen, vicomte d’Arques). Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard was the brother of Walter I Giffard, Lord of Longueville and Earl of Buckingham (Geoffroi and Walter sons of Osbern de Bolbec). Further, Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard had at least one other son named Giselbert (Gilbert), and possibly another Osbern d’Arques (who had a son named Giselbert d’Arques that was Bishop of Evreux).
"Guillelmus et Gislebertus filii Godefredi Archarum vicecomitis" donated land in Montvilla to Sainte-Trinité de Rouen dated 1059 (Rouen Sainte-Trinité, XXV, p. 433.)
For the umpteenth time, it is NEVER worthwhile taking ANY information
from the Medieval Lands database without verifying it: in this case,
Osbern de Arcis was NOT the father of a fictitious personage called
"Gislebert d'Arques that was bishop of Evreux".
As Keats-Rohan stated in Domesday People, Osbern de Arcis was dead by
1115/18 when his son William had succeeded him. He could not have been
the father Gilbert fitz Osbern, who was elected bishop in 1071 when he
was already an archdeacon. This man was Gilbert 'la Grue' (or 'le
Grand'), who is often said to have been the son of Duchess Gunnora's
nephew Osbern de Crépon, seneschal of Normandy, or of his son William de
Breteuil, earl of Hereford. However, there is no proof for this
connection either, that is based on nothing more than Orderic Vitalis
once referring to the bishop as "Gislebertus Osberni filius". Bishop
Gilbert must have been about as old as Osbern de Arcis, if not older,
and certainly cannot have been his son.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2019-09-16 01:37:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks for the clarification about Osbern d'Arcis and Gilbert fitz Osbern who was elected bishop in 1071 and for the heads up about Med Lands database.
Any information/insight on the family group of Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard (alias) d'Arques who was brother to Walter I Giffard, seigneur de Longueville, Earl of Buckingham would be most welcome. The Tancarville/Giffard connection through the marriage between Mathilde d'Arques (daughter of William d'Arques, vicomte d'Arques) and William I de Tancarville seems like a possibility as far as the kinship between the William II Tancarville and the Marshal family.
As far as I'm aware the possible connection you have outlined between
the Marshal and Giffard families could be right - however, we can't know
this for certain without clearer evidence. The marshalship (marshalcy?)
is likely to have become hereditary in a line closely related to Duchess
Gunnora, so that her great-nephew Gilbert seems a reasonable candidate,
but then identifying him as Gilbert 'Gibard' and as ancestor of the
Marshal family is a lot of weight to place on the documentation
available. According to Neil Stacy in EHR 114 (1999) p. 32, "That the
Marshals were Giffards is proved by the presentation 1123–1135 to the
church of Cheddar (Som.) of 'William Giffard, son of Gilbert the king's
marshal'." But "proved" is a bit too strong for this.

Peter Stewart
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-16 01:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Peter,

Thanks so much for your input.

I have a question for you about the chronology. Do you think the chronology of what is known and probable leans towards the Gilbert Gibard 'the Marshal' found in Domesday being the same person as Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' (William's grandfather), or more likely possibly his father?

If John fitz Gilbert 'the Marshal' was born between 1100-1110 (which is most likely), and his father Gilbert passed away about 1129/1130, it seems to me a stretch that he would be the Gilbert 'the Marshal' from Domesday having been of age in 1086 and a landowner, but not had children until 1100-1110 (although William didn't have children until he was in his 40s).

To me it seems more likely that the Domesday Gilbert 'the Marshal' would be the possible father of Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' than the same person.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks for the clarification about Osbern d'Arcis and Gilbert fitz Osbern who was elected bishop in 1071 and for the heads up about Med Lands database.
Any information/insight on the family group of Geoffroi (Godefroi) Giffard (alias) d'Arques who was brother to Walter I Giffard, seigneur de Longueville, Earl of Buckingham would be most welcome. The Tancarville/Giffard connection through the marriage between Mathilde d'Arques (daughter of William d'Arques, vicomte d'Arques) and William I de Tancarville seems like a possibility as far as the kinship between the William II Tancarville and the Marshal family.
As far as I'm aware the possible connection you have outlined between
the Marshal and Giffard families could be right - however, we can't know
this for certain without clearer evidence. The marshalship (marshalcy?)
is likely to have become hereditary in a line closely related to Duchess
Gunnora, so that her great-nephew Gilbert seems a reasonable candidate,
but then identifying him as Gilbert 'Gibard' and as ancestor of the
Marshal family is a lot of weight to place on the documentation
available. According to Neil Stacy in EHR 114 (1999) p. 32, "That the
Marshals were Giffards is proved by the presentation 1123–1135 to the
church of Cheddar (Som.) of 'William Giffard, son of Gilbert the king's
marshal'." But "proved" is a bit too strong for this.
Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2019-09-16 02:30:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks so much for your input.
I have a question for you about the chronology. Do you think the chronology of what is known and probable leans towards the Gilbert Gibard 'the Marshal' found in Domesday being the same person as Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' (William's grandfather), or more likely possibly his father?
If John fitz Gilbert 'the Marshal' was born between 1100-1110 (which is most likely), and his father Gilbert passed away about 1129/1130, it seems to me a stretch that he would be the Gilbert 'the Marshal' from Domesday having been of age in 1086 and a landowner, but not had children until 1100-1110 (although William didn't have children until he was in his 40s).
To me it seems more likely that the Domesday Gilbert 'the Marshal' would be the possible father of Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' than the same person.
Keats-Rohan states that Gilbert, the Domesday tenant of Garsington, Oxfordshire, "died before 1100, leaving three daughters, married to Ralph Percehaie, Picot and William. William was William de Botendene, who married Gilbert's daughter Agnes; their daughter Adeliz, wife of Robert and mother of Hugh, inherited land in Garsingdon." Keats-Rohan also states that "the holding was identified in Chron. Abing. ii 5, milites tenentes, as that of Gilbert the marshal, a probably anachronistic reference to the son of John fitz Gilbert Marshal. Elsewhere, the Abingdon Chronicle identifies Gilbert as Latemer, id est Interpres." (Domesday People, p. 214)
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-16 04:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Jan,

Thanks for the info from Keats-Rohan Domesday People. I don't have the book, but was able to find the page you were referring to, and it does appear that the entry for Garsington listed as Gilbert 'the Marshal' is indeed a different person Gilbert Latemer. I am not sure how the title 'the Marshal' was attached to the entry, but perhaps she is right that it was an anachronistic reference to the Marshal's son Gilbert. It would be interesting to know when/how the Marshal's father came into possession of the fee.

Above the entry you cited is the one for Giselbert Gibart regarding the other Domesday entry I cited above for Winterbourne Monkton, which was the fee from the Abbots of Glastonbury that Crouch cites, as fees held by the Marshal. This is definitely the man I am interested in. From Domesday for Wiltshire: Extracted from Accurate Copies of the Original by William Henry Rich Jones Gilbert Giffard is identified as a tenant of Glastonbury Abbey as Keats-Rohan states on the following pages.

https://archive.org/details/domesdayforwilt00jonegoog/page/n251
https://archive.org/details/domesdayforwilt00jonegoog/page/n113
https://archive.org/details/domesdayforwilt00jonegoog/page/n325
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks so much for your input.
I have a question for you about the chronology. Do you think the chronology of what is known and probable leans towards the Gilbert Gibard 'the Marshal' found in Domesday being the same person as Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' (William's grandfather), or more likely possibly his father?
If John fitz Gilbert 'the Marshal' was born between 1100-1110 (which is most likely), and his father Gilbert passed away about 1129/1130, it seems to me a stretch that he would be the Gilbert 'the Marshal' from Domesday having been of age in 1086 and a landowner, but not had children until 1100-1110 (although William didn't have children until he was in his 40s).
To me it seems more likely that the Domesday Gilbert 'the Marshal' would be the possible father of Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' than the same person.
Keats-Rohan states that Gilbert, the Domesday tenant of Garsington, Oxfordshire, "died before 1100, leaving three daughters, married to Ralph Percehaie, Picot and William. William was William de Botendene, who married Gilbert's daughter Agnes; their daughter Adeliz, wife of Robert and mother of Hugh, inherited land in Garsingdon." Keats-Rohan also states that "the holding was identified in Chron. Abing. ii 5, milites tenentes, as that of Gilbert the marshal, a probably anachronistic reference to the son of John fitz Gilbert Marshal. Elsewhere, the Abingdon Chronicle identifies Gilbert as Latemer, id est Interpres." (Domesday People, p. 214)
Peter Stewart
2019-09-16 05:27:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
Peter,
Thanks so much for your input.
I have a question for you about the chronology. Do you think the chronology of what is known and probable leans towards the Gilbert Gibard 'the Marshal' found in Domesday being the same person as Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' (William's grandfather), or more likely possibly his father?
If John fitz Gilbert 'the Marshal' was born between 1100-1110 (which is most likely), and his father Gilbert passed away about 1129/1130, it seems to me a stretch that he would be the Gilbert 'the Marshal' from Domesday having been of age in 1086 and a landowner, but not had children until 1100-1110 (although William didn't have children until he was in his 40s).
To me it seems more likely that the Domesday Gilbert 'the Marshal' would be the possible father of Gilbert Giffard 'the Marshal' than the same person.
Where we have so little information to go by, the generational
chronology may be largely in the eye of the beholder.

As an example, recently I was looking into the seigneurial family of
Toucy - most historians accept (without definite proof) that the first
lord was named Itier and that he was granted Toucy in whole or in part
by the bishop of Auxerre ca 1016. The next record is of an Itier who was
one of two rivals for lordship over Toucy in 1060, and after that an
Itier who died on crusade ca 1097. With one exception in 1907, most
historians make these three occurrences into two Itiers, father and son,
with either the first two or the last two being the same man. The
exception added a third Itier, so that each occurrence belonged to a
different generation. The last man had a younger brother Narjot who
became seigneur of Toucy and died on crusade in (or shortly before)
1110, i.e. scarcely likely to have been the younger son of a man who was
prominent locally by ca 1016. Needless to say, this is far from the sole
problem with the Toucy genealogy - and oddly, the historian writing in
1907 has been overlooked by most others since, even omitted from Gaston
Saffroy's *Bibliographie généalogique, héraldique et nobiliaire*.

Medieval nobility were perhaps not as fixated as some imagine on
begetting male heirs while still in the flush of young-manhood. I wonder
if the hysteria of Henry VIII over having sons has tended to colour the
received view ever since his time. Richard II wasn't so bothered about
collateral inheritance, but little good did this do for the Plantagenets
from his reign onwards.

The irony, of course, is that one of Henry VIII's daughters turned out
to be the most astute, and equally the most potent, of all English
sovereigns. Her namesake has just dismally let down the "firm" by acting
unlawfully in Scotland according to the highest authority of Scottish
law - an irredeemable mistake whatever the UK's highest court may
subsequently say about it, and one that would surely be a resigning
offense in any elected head of state. Yet no abdication, despite a
coronation oath taken while sitting on the Stone of Scone. The days of
rigorously-principled monarchy are apparently in the past...

Peter Stewart
j***@gmail.com
2019-09-16 10:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't think it is accurate to say that the Scotland court found the queen to have acted unlawfully... My understanding is that the basis of the court finding was solely that Bad Hair Day had lied to the Queen, and this lie was what made the action unlawful
Peter Stewart
2019-09-16 11:54:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
I don't think it is accurate to say that the Scotland court found the queen to have acted unlawfully... My understanding is that the basis of the court finding was solely that Bad Hair Day had lied to the Queen, and this lie was what made the action unlawful
But the action was taken by the queen - the whole point of the unanimous
decision is that the prorogation was unlawful, and only the monarch can
prorogue. There is no law to say that the prime minister must not give
misleading advice to the monarch, that is just convention. However, the
basic trust implied by the coronation oath is that the monarch will act
only in accordance with the law. If she has a simple job description it
must include that she should never allow herself to be misled in such
matters. Her job is to hold the reserve powers of the state, and
obviously to exercise these when necessary. She failed.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2019-09-16 15:10:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
If John fitz Gilbert 'the Marshal' was born between 1100-1110 (which is most likely),
I would think he was born earlier than 1110, and I'm not sure how you rule out earlier than 1100. Apart from anything else don't forget William was certainly not the eldest son.

But of course, there might have been two Gilberts, which is the same as saying that we can only guess about the exact connection to the Domesday generation - which is common.
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-16 19:56:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Perhaps John was born before 1100, but that would make him 46/47 years of age when he had William, and I believe William had 2 younger brothers, one of which Henry was born abt. 1150. I am not sure when Anselm or William's two known sisters were born. You are right that it can't be ruled out that he was born prior to 1100, but it seems less likely.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Jordan Vandenberg
If John fitz Gilbert 'the Marshal' was born between 1100-1110 (which is most likely),
I would think he was born earlier than 1110, and I'm not sure how you rule out earlier than 1100. Apart from anything else don't forget William was certainly not the eldest son.
But of course, there might have been two Gilberts, which is the same as saying that we can only guess about the exact connection to the Domesday generation - which is common.
Andrew Lancaster
2019-09-16 15:02:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
FWIW Jordan, Crouch accepts Giffard as John Marshall's father. I would add to what Peter says that there is a bit more to the proposed proof than just the chief Marshalcy (as Crouch likes to spell it) which we know John also claimed, but the involved region, and let's not forget that John was "fitz Gilbert". Indeed King John put it on record that John and his father Gilbert had won such a dispute in the time of Henry I.

Concerning connections between Giffards perhaps you already know that Crouch says: "It is highly unlikely that Gilbert Giffard was related to the Conqueror's leading follower, Walter Giffard, Earl of Buckingham; it is conceivable on the grounds of proximity, however, that he might have had a connection with the unrelated West Country barons, the Giffards of Brimpsfield." (Traditionally the Giffards of Brimpsfield and Bucks are often linked.)

I offer that quote without having a strong understanding or opinion about how he came to those conclusions. In fact, I sometimes wonder if we really should be so sure that Giffard is a French nickname originally, and not a Germanic personal name (Geveard, Gebhard).

Altogether it does seem very likely to me that John was a Giffard, and a brother of William who became chancellor to Queen Mathilda.
Jordan Vandenberg
2019-09-16 19:50:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks Andrew,

I am not quite sure why Crouch takes the position that is "highly unlikely" that the other Domesday Giffards were not related to Walter I Giffard, seigneur de Longueville, Earl of Buckingham. I assume he is speaking of Osbern, Berenger and Gilbert, who other than Walter II Giffard are the only ones I am aware of. Both Osbern (Giffards of Brimpsfield) and Berenger given their holdings (vast in Osbern's case) in Domesday seem as though they would have come from an elevated family (especially Osbern who not only was a major landholder, but also bears the same name as Walter I Giffard's father Osbern de Bolbec). It seems very conceivable that they could have been younger sons born of Walter Giffard or a sibling.

The nickname Giffard may have become like a 'dit' name that is often found when researching French Canadian ancestors, which I believe was used as an identifier within areas where there are many with the same surname or larger families. In some cases over time it becomes the surname, which may have happened here with Giffard replacing Bolbec.
Post by Andrew Lancaster
FWIW Jordan, Crouch accepts Giffard as John Marshall's father. I would add to what Peter says that there is a bit more to the proposed proof than just the chief Marshalcy (as Crouch likes to spell it) which we know John also claimed, but the involved region, and let's not forget that John was "fitz Gilbert". Indeed King John put it on record that John and his father Gilbert had won such a dispute in the time of Henry I.
Concerning connections between Giffards perhaps you already know that Crouch says: "It is highly unlikely that Gilbert Giffard was related to the Conqueror's leading follower, Walter Giffard, Earl of Buckingham; it is conceivable on the grounds of proximity, however, that he might have had a connection with the unrelated West Country barons, the Giffards of Brimpsfield." (Traditionally the Giffards of Brimpsfield and Bucks are often linked.)
I offer that quote without having a strong understanding or opinion about how he came to those conclusions. In fact, I sometimes wonder if we really should be so sure that Giffard is a French nickname originally, and not a Germanic personal name (Geveard, Gebhard).
Altogether it does seem very likely to me that John was a Giffard, and a brother of William who became chancellor to Queen Mathilda.
Loading...