Discussion:
Ida Longespee vs. Ida Longespee??
Add Reply
Steve Riggan
2013-07-27 06:43:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have been doing some research on the families descended from Ida Longespee and Walter FitzWalter versus the families of another Ida Longespee and second husband William Beauchamp and am confused by the different information regarding the parentage of these two women, obviously related. I am descended from both women, multiple times through the Longespee/Beauchamp marriage, and I have seen where Ida Longespee, wife of Walter FitzWalter, was thought to be the granddaughter of William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury and other research has indicated that she was his daughter and a sister of the same name to Ida, wife of William Beauchamp. My question is, has any updated information revealed the exact relationship of these women to William Longespee? I have looked online and have not found anything that satisfies my questions. I'm sure this has been discussed in years past at length, but I'm not finding those discussions very easily. Hopefully, someone in the newsgroup can clarify the lines. Thanks.
Steve Riggan
j***@gmail.com
2013-07-27 11:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:43:09 AM UTC-4, Steve Riggan wrote:
> I have been doing some research on the families descended from Ida Longespee and Walter FitzWalter versus the families of another Ida Longespee and second husband William Beauchamp and am confused by the different information regarding the parentage of these two women, obviously related. I am descended from both women, multiple times through the Longespee/Beauchamp marriage, and I have seen where Ida Longespee, wife of Walter FitzWalter, was thought to be the granddaughter of William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury and other research has indicated that she was his daughter and a sister of the same name to Ida, wife of William Beauchamp. My question is, has any updated information revealed the exact relationship of these women to William Longespee? I have looked online and have not found anything that satisfies my questions. I'm sure this has been discussed in years past at length, but I'm not finding those discussions very easily. Hopefully, someone in the newsgroup can clarify the lines. Thanks.
>
> Steve Riggan

See Discussions:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/%22ida$20longespee%22/soc.genealogy.medieval/9rhn70DvCJI/mtcEixSIugUJ

The issue is definitely not settled. Richardson's most recent work "Royal Ancestry" [2013] continues the placement of both Ida's as full sisters as above, but I personally prefer a solution where Ida, wife of William de Beauchamp is the daughter of William Longespee and Ela; while Ida, wife of Walter FitzRobert, is a different generation entirely, daughter of William Longespee [son of the above William] and Idoine de Camville.

--Joe C
Steve Riggan
2013-07-27 18:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thank you for sending the link. The solution you present is the same I have seen in other research and I'm sure this is based on chronology and makes sense. I think Leo has it posted as such so obviously many others have come to this same conclusion.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 27, 2013, at 4:41 AM, ***@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, July 27, 2013 2:43:09 AM UTC-4, Steve Riggan wrote:
>> I have been doing some research on the families descended from Ida Longespee and Walter FitzWalter versus the families of another Ida Longespee and second husband William Beauchamp and am confused by the different information regarding the parentage of these two women, obviously related. I am descended from both women, multiple times through the Longespee/Beauchamp marriage, and I have seen where Ida Longespee, wife of Walter FitzWalter, was thought to be the granddaughter of William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury and other research has indicated that she was his daughter and a sister of the same name to Ida, wife of William Beauchamp. My question is, has any updated information revealed the exact relationship of these women to William Longespee? I have looked online and have not found anything that satisfies my questions. I'm sure this has been discussed in years past at length, but I'm not finding those discussions very easily. Hopefully, someone in the newsgroup !
> can clarify the lines. Thanks.
>>
>> Steve Riggan
>
> See Discussions:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/%22ida$20longespee%22/soc.genealogy.medieval/9rhn70DvCJI/mtcEixSIugUJ
>
> The issue is definitely not settled. Richardson's most recent work "Royal Ancestry" [2013] continues the placement of both Ida's as full sisters as above, but I personally prefer a solution where Ida, wife of William de Beauchamp is the daughter of William Longespee and Ela; while Ida, wife of Walter FitzRobert, is a different generation entirely, daughter of William Longespee [son of the above William] and Idoine de Camville.
>
> --Joe C
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Douglas Richardson
2013-07-29 15:51:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Steve ~

There has been discussion in the past on the newsgroup regarding the
placement of Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, in the
Longespée family tree. Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub
FitzWalter) identifies Ida as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl
of Salisbury." The William Longespée intended here is presumably
William Longespée I who died in 1226, not his son, William II, who
died in 1250. If so, this would give Earl William Longespée I and his
wife, Ela, two adult daughters named Ida, one of whom married Walter
Fitz Robert, and the other who married William de Beauchamp.
Curiously Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.

The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, as a Longespée
has traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found
in Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children
of William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:

"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].

It is not known exactly why Ida Longespée is here styled Ida de Camyle
in this record. I've assumed, however, that Ida may have had a brief
Camville marriage previous to her known marriage to Walter Fitz
Robert. If so, a previous Camvillle marriage would explain her use of
the Camville surname as a grown adult. Ida's older brother, William
Longespée II, is known, for example, to have married a member of the
Camville family.

There are two contemporary records which prove that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was in fact a Longespée. The first record comes from List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and Exchequer, which source contains an abstract of a letter dated 1261-1263 from Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, written to Walter de Merton, the king's chancellor, in which Ida specifically styles herself Ida Longespée:

"152. Ida Longespée, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, to the same [Walter
de Merton, Chancellor]: to bail two of her men appealed of homicide.
[1261-1263]." [Reference: List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and
Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 107-108].

Elsewhere I find that Calendar of Liberate Rolls 5 (1961): 93 likewise refers to Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, as "Ida Lungespee:"

Date: 11 May 1162 — “Liberate to Geoffrey de Lezinan, the king’s brother, 40l. in recompense of a like sum received there of the issues of the manor of Henham [Essex] by the hands of Ida Lungespee." END OF QUOTE.

To date to my knowledge no one has discovered Ida Longespée's
maritagium, although she certainly had one in marriage. Recently I
encountered a record which evidently concerns her maritagium. The
record in question is a Wiltshire pleading which dates from 1249:

"Walter son of Robert and Ida his wife, by Ida's attorney by writ of
the present king, who brought an assize of novel disseisin against
William Lungepeie for holdings in Scepperingge and Heniton, Farlegh'
and Bidinham, have come and withdrawn by licence. It is agreed
between them that Walter and Ida had put themselves utterly in
William's grace for those holdings." [Reference: Clanchy, Civil Pleas
of the Wiltshire Eyre 1249 (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 26) (1971): 152].

The lands involved in this lawsuit can be identified as Sheepbridge
(in Swallowfield), Hinton (in Hurst), Farley [Hill] (in Swallowfield),
and Diddenham (in Shinfield), all in modern Berkshire but formerly in
Wiltshire. These lands were apparently held by William Longespée I
and his wife, Countess Ela.

VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 267-274 states that Sheepbridge "belonged with
Hinton in 1236 to Ela, Countess of Salisbury." Countess Ela named
here was the widow of William Longespée I. VCH's statement regarding
Countess Ela's holding of these lands is based on a charter found in
Calendar of Charter Rolls 1226–57, page 221, whereby the king
confirmed a grant of Countess Ela of various lands to Lacock Abbey,
in exchange for "10 l. yearly receivable ...... .of the manors of
Shiperige and Henton, and the advowson of the church of Winterburn
Shyreveton."

The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1dELAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Calendar+Charter+Rolls+1226&hl=en&ei=M-U4TrbTFYvXiALj163DDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Calendar%20Charter%20Rolls%201226&f=false

Countess Ela's charter is undated but surely must date from around
1236. My files notes show the following information:

"In Feb. 1236 her son and heir, William Longespée, guaranteed her
gifts to Lacock Abbey, while she agreed to surrender all her lands,
rents and rights to him on 1 Nov. following. On 25 Oct. 1236 Ela,
Countess of Salisbury, reached agreement with William Longespée, her
first born son, that she may grant a moiety of the manor of
Heddington, Wiltshire to Lacock Priory, which property fell to her on
the death of Maud de Mandeville, Countess of Essex and Hereford. In
the winter 1236–7 she resigned her custody of the county of
Wiltshire. She subsequently entered her religious foundation at
Lacock, where she took the veil before spring 1238." END OF QUOTE
FROM MY FILE NOTES.

Following Countess Ela's surrender of her lands to her son, William
Longespée II, he in turn granted the four properties in question,
namely Sheepbridge, Hinton, Farley, and Diddenham, to his seneschal,
Sir Henry de la Mare. The date of this grant is sometime before
1239-40.

In that year Sir Henry de la Mare was involved in a legal action
concerning these four properties. A reference to this lawsuit may be
found in Maitland, Bracton’s Note Book 3 (1887): 286–287. This may
be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=DtcQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:LtFTiI1NIsEC&hl=en&ei=nmw5TsSXK42IsAKv3OEg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So the question arises: When did Walter Fitz Robert and his wife, Ida
Longespée, acquire their interest in the four properties? The answer
to that question is not exact but surely it must have dated from the
time that Countess Ela of Salisbury was holding these properties and
before 1 Nov. 1236 when Countess Ela surrendered all her lands, rents,
and rights to her son, William Longespée II. Walter and Ida can't
have acquired their interest from William Longespée II, as once his
mother released her lands to him, he almost immediately conveyed these
four properties to his seneschal, Sir Henry de la Mare. One of these
properties, Hinton, subsequently descended to Sir Henry de la Mare's
daughter and heiress, Maud, wife of Peter de Montfort, and thence to
her descendants [see VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 247–260].

So besides knowing that Walter Fitz Robert and Ida Longespée obtained
their interest in the properties before 1236, what else can we know?
More specifically, why would Ida claim these lands, if her brother had
granted them to his seneschal?

The answer to this question is not clear but a reasonable guess would
be that these four properties were put up as Ida's maritagium when she
was contracted to marry a Camville and that when the contracted
Camville marriage failed to materialize or produced no issue, by the
terms of the marriage contract, the lands returned to Ida's family.
At that point, Ida's claim to the lands was essentially voided. This
in turn would explain why Ida's brother, William Longespée II, felt
free to grant these lands elsewhere to Sir Henry de la Mare.

In summary, adequate evidence has been located which indicates that
Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was a Longespée. In 1249 Walter Fitz
Robert and his wife, Ida, sued William Longespée II regarding four
properties then in Wiltshire, but now in Berkshire. The four
properties in question were apparently part of the inheritance of
Ida's mother, Countess Ela, who appears to have controlled the lands
until 1236, when she released her lands to her son, William Longespée
II. Ida's rights must predate 1236, as William Longespée II almost
immediately conveyed these properties before 1239-40 to his seneschal,
Sir Henry de la Mare. Thus William Longespée II can not have offered
them as Ida's maritagium. This in turn implies that Ida Longespée was
the daughter of William Longespée I and his wife, Countess Ela, and
not William Longespée II.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Robert:

Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Walter Aston, Christopher Batt, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Edward Bromfield, Nathaniel Browne, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew Clarkson, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Muriel Gurdon, Katherine Hamby, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Nathaniel Littleton, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Symon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stratton, James Taylor, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, Olive Welby, John West, Thomas Yale.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:43:09 AM UTC-6, Steve Riggan wrote:
< I have been doing some research on the families descended from Ida Longespee <and Walter FitzWalter versus the families of another Ida Longespee and second <husband William Beauchamp and am confused by the different information <regarding the parentage of these two women, obviously related. I am descended <from both women, multiple times through the Longespee/Beauchamp marriage, and <I have seen where Ida Longespee, wife of Walter FitzWalter, was thought to be <the granddaughter of William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury and other <research has indicated that she was his daughter and a sister of the same name <to Ida, wife of William Beauchamp. My question is, has any updated <information revealed the exact relationship of these women to William <Longespee? Hopefully, someone in the <newsgroup can clarify the lines. Thanks.
<
< Steve Riggan
j***@yahoo.com
2013-07-29 16:15:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, July 29, 2013 8:51:45 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Steve ~
>
>
>
> There has been discussion in the past on the newsgroup regarding the
>
> placement of Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, in the
>
> Longespée family tree. Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub
>
> FitzWalter) identifies Ida as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl
>
> of Salisbury." The William Longespée intended here is presumably
>
> William Longespée I who died in 1226, not his son, William II, who
>
> died in 1250. If so, this would give Earl William Longespée I and his
>
> wife, Ela, two adult daughters named Ida, one of whom married Walter
>
> Fitz Robert, and the other who married William de Beauchamp.
>
> Curiously Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
>
> Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
>
> the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
>
> Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
>
>
>
> The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, as a Longespée
>
> has traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found
>
> in Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children
>
> of William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
>
> Salisbury, including:
>
>
>
> "Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
>
> genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
>
> duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
>
> [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
>
>
>
> It is not known exactly why Ida Longespée is here styled Ida de Camyle
>
> in this record. I've assumed, however, that Ida may have had a brief
>
> Camville marriage previous to her known marriage to Walter Fitz
>
> Robert. If so, a previous Camvillle marriage would explain her use of
>
> the Camville surname as a grown adult. Ida's older brother, William
>
> Longespée II, is known, for example, to have married a member of the
>
> Camville family.
>
>
>
> There are two contemporary records which prove that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was in fact a Longespée. The first record comes from List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and Exchequer, which source contains an abstract of a letter dated 1261-1263 from Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, written to Walter de Merton, the king's chancellor, in which Ida specifically styles herself Ida Longespée:
>
>
>
> "152. Ida Longespée, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, to the same [Walter
>
> de Merton, Chancellor]: to bail two of her men appealed of homicide.
>
> [1261-1263]." [Reference: List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and
>
> Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 107-108].
>
>
>
> Elsewhere I find that Calendar of Liberate Rolls 5 (1961): 93 likewise refers to Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, as "Ida Lungespee:"
>
>
>
> Date: 11 May 1162 — “Liberate to Geoffrey de Lezinan, the king’s brother, 40l. in recompense of a like sum received there of the issues of the manor of Henham [Essex] by the hands of Ida Lungespee." END OF QUOTE.
>
>
>
> To date to my knowledge no one has discovered Ida Longespée's
>
> maritagium, although she certainly had one in marriage. Recently I
>
> encountered a record which evidently concerns her maritagium. The
>
> record in question is a Wiltshire pleading which dates from 1249:
>
>
>
> "Walter son of Robert and Ida his wife, by Ida's attorney by writ of
>
> the present king, who brought an assize of novel disseisin against
>
> William Lungepeie for holdings in Scepperingge and Heniton, Farlegh'
>
> and Bidinham, have come and withdrawn by licence. It is agreed
>
> between them that Walter and Ida had put themselves utterly in
>
> William's grace for those holdings." [Reference: Clanchy, Civil Pleas
>
> of the Wiltshire Eyre 1249 (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 26) (1971): 152].
>
>
>
> The lands involved in this lawsuit can be identified as Sheepbridge
>
> (in Swallowfield), Hinton (in Hurst), Farley [Hill] (in Swallowfield),
>
> and Diddenham (in Shinfield), all in modern Berkshire but formerly in
>
> Wiltshire. These lands were apparently held by William Longespée I
>
> and his wife, Countess Ela.
>
>
>
> VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 267-274 states that Sheepbridge "belonged with
>
> Hinton in 1236 to Ela, Countess of Salisbury." Countess Ela named
>
> here was the widow of William Longespée I. VCH's statement regarding
>
> Countess Ela's holding of these lands is based on a charter found in
>
> Calendar of Charter Rolls 1226–57, page 221, whereby the king
>
> confirmed a grant of Countess Ela of various lands to Lacock Abbey,
>
> in exchange for "10 l. yearly receivable ...... .of the manors of
>
> Shiperige and Henton, and the advowson of the church of Winterburn
>
> Shyreveton."
>
>
>
> The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=1dELAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Calendar+Charter+Rolls+1226&hl=en&ei=M-U4TrbTFYvXiALj163DDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Calendar%20Charter%20Rolls%201226&f=false
>
>
>
> Countess Ela's charter is undated but surely must date from around
>
> 1236. My files notes show the following information:
>
>
>
> "In Feb. 1236 her son and heir, William Longespée, guaranteed her
>
> gifts to Lacock Abbey, while she agreed to surrender all her lands,
>
> rents and rights to him on 1 Nov. following. On 25 Oct. 1236 Ela,
>
> Countess of Salisbury, reached agreement with William Longespée, her
>
> first born son, that she may grant a moiety of the manor of
>
> Heddington, Wiltshire to Lacock Priory, which property fell to her on
>
> the death of Maud de Mandeville, Countess of Essex and Hereford. In
>
> the winter 1236–7 she resigned her custody of the county of
>
> Wiltshire. She subsequently entered her religious foundation at
>
> Lacock, where she took the veil before spring 1238." END OF QUOTE
>
> FROM MY FILE NOTES.
>
>
>
> Following Countess Ela's surrender of her lands to her son, William
>
> Longespée II, he in turn granted the four properties in question,
>
> namely Sheepbridge, Hinton, Farley, and Diddenham, to his seneschal,
>
> Sir Henry de la Mare. The date of this grant is sometime before
>
> 1239-40.
>
>
>
> In that year Sir Henry de la Mare was involved in a legal action
>
> concerning these four properties. A reference to this lawsuit may be
>
> found in Maitland, Bracton’s Note Book 3 (1887): 286–287. This may
>
> be viewed at the following weblink:
>
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=DtcQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:LtFTiI1NIsEC&hl=en&ei=nmw5TsSXK42IsAKv3OEg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
>
>
> So the question arises: When did Walter Fitz Robert and his wife, Ida
>
> Longespée, acquire their interest in the four properties? The answer
>
> to that question is not exact but surely it must have dated from the
>
> time that Countess Ela of Salisbury was holding these properties and
>
> before 1 Nov. 1236 when Countess Ela surrendered all her lands, rents,
>
> and rights to her son, William Longespée II. Walter and Ida can't
>
> have acquired their interest from William Longespée II, as once his
>
> mother released her lands to him, he almost immediately conveyed these
>
> four properties to his seneschal, Sir Henry de la Mare. One of these
>
> properties, Hinton, subsequently descended to Sir Henry de la Mare's
>
> daughter and heiress, Maud, wife of Peter de Montfort, and thence to
>
> her descendants [see VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 247–260].
>
>
>
> So besides knowing that Walter Fitz Robert and Ida Longespée obtained
>
> their interest in the properties before 1236, what else can we know?
>
> More specifically, why would Ida claim these lands, if her brother had
>
> granted them to his seneschal?
>
>
>
> The answer to this question is not clear but a reasonable guess would
>
> be that these four properties were put up as Ida's maritagium when she
>
> was contracted to marry a Camville and that when the contracted
>
> Camville marriage failed to materialize or produced no issue, by the
>
> terms of the marriage contract, the lands returned to Ida's family.
>
> At that point, Ida's claim to the lands was essentially voided. This
>
> in turn would explain why Ida's brother, William Longespée II, felt
>
> free to grant these lands elsewhere to Sir Henry de la Mare.
>
>
>
> In summary, adequate evidence has been located which indicates that
>
> Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was a Longespée. In 1249 Walter Fitz
>
> Robert and his wife, Ida, sued William Longespée II regarding four
>
> properties then in Wiltshire, but now in Berkshire. The four
>
> properties in question were apparently part of the inheritance of
>
> Ida's mother, Countess Ela, who appears to have controlled the lands
>
> until 1236, when she released her lands to her son, William Longespée
>
> II. Ida's rights must predate 1236, as William Longespée II almost
>
> immediately conveyed these properties before 1239-40 to his seneschal,
>
> Sir Henry de la Mare. Thus William Longespée II can not have offered
>
> them as Ida's maritagium. This in turn implies that Ida Longespée was
>
> the daughter of William Longespée I and his wife, Countess Ela, and
>
> not William Longespée II.
>
>

This of course is simply a re-posting of the same material that DR has posted every few years for the past decade or more, whenever this subject has arisen. For the other side of the story which DR of course ignores, check the archives for 2002 and 2007 as a start. DR's position on this matter was well characterized in 2007 as "tailoring your interpretations to fit a theory". That judgment still seems apt.
Douglas Richardson
2013-07-29 16:52:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, July 29, 2013 10:15:31 AM UTC-6, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
< This of course is simply a re-posting of the same material that DR has posted <every few years for the past decade or more, whenever this subject has <arisen. For the other side of the story which DR of course ignores, check the <archives for 2002 and 2007 as a start. DR's position on this matter was well <characterized in 2007 as "tailoring your interpretations to fit a theory". <That judgment still seems apt.

My post today was taken from a post I made in 2011, not on anything I posted back in 2002 or 2007. The post was primarily based on new evidence that I located in 2011. It was unknown back in 2002 and 2007. Also, thanks to John Ravilious, I added a new piece of evidence to the post today that has turned up since 2011.

At the time of my 2011 posting, a newsgroup member said "Bravo. Good find." There was no rebuttal by anyone. I believe the evidence speaks for itself.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Monica Kanellis
2013-07-29 17:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
re: Date: 11 May 1162 — “Liberate to Geoffrey de Lezinan...

earlier post had 1262


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Douglas Richardson
<***@msn.com>wrote:

> On Monday, July 29, 2013 10:15:31 AM UTC-6, ***@yahoo.com wrote:
> < This of course is simply a re-posting of the same material that DR has
> posted <every few years for the past decade or more, whenever this subject
> has <arisen. For the other side of the story which DR of course ignores,
> check the <archives for 2002 and 2007 as a start. DR's position on this
> matter was well <characterized in 2007 as "tailoring your interpretations
> to fit a theory". <That judgment still seems apt.
>
> My post today was taken from a post I made in 2011, not on anything I
> posted back in 2002 or 2007. The post was primarily based on new evidence
> that I located in 2011. It was unknown back in 2002 and 2007. Also,
> thanks to John Ravilious, I added a new piece of evidence to the post today
> that has turned up since 2011.
>
> At the time of my 2011 posting, a newsgroup member said "Bravo. Good
> find." There was no rebuttal by anyone. I believe the evidence speaks for
> itself.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Douglas Richardson
2013-07-29 17:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, July 29, 2013 11:11:13 AM UTC-6, Monica Kanellis wrote:
> re: Date: 11 May 1162 — “Liberate to Geoffrey de Lezinan...
>
>
>
> earlier post had 1262

Thanks, Monica.

The correct date is 1262.

DR
j***@gmail.com
2013-07-29 17:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The information on the four properties and the lawsuit is, of course, an excellent find and useful information I had not seen before your 2011 post. Is there more information lying in an archive somewhere about the lawsuit beyond this short reference/abstract, that might illuminate the relationships between these individuals? Your presumption on the reason for the lawsuit is better than any guess I could invent on why Ida's 2nd husband would sue his father'in'law, if that was instead the relationship.

Joe C
Douglas Richardson
2013-07-29 18:23:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Joe ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

In answer to your question, the published lawsuit gives no further particulars regarding this matter.

I suppose there could be many reasons for the 1249 lawsuit. I've suggested one plausible scenario. Offline today I asked our legal expert, Matt Tompkins, if he can suggest some other possible reasons for the lawsuit. If Matt replies, I'll let you know what he says.

A lawsuit over failure to pay a legacy or failure to give a promised maritagium would be common reasons for a sister to sue her brother in this time period. I doubt, however, that an unpaid legacy was the reason for this particular lawsuit. Ida's father William Longespee had been dead since 1225, and the lawsuit is dated 1249. Also Ida's mother Countess Ela was still living.

Because there is land involved, it looks to me like there was a problem with a maritagium that Ida thought she was promised. That's just a guess. It makes sense, though.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Monday, July 29, 2013 11:57:40 AM UTC-6, ***@gmail.com wrote:
< The information on the four properties and the lawsuit is, of course, an <excellent find and useful information I had not seen before your 2011 post. <Is there more information lying in an archive somewhere about the lawsuit <beyond this short reference/abstract, that might illuminate the relationships <between these individuals? Your presumption on the reason for the lawsuit is <better than any guess I could invent on why Ida's 2nd husband would sue his <father'in'law, if that was instead the relationship.
<
< Joe C
Steve Riggan
2013-07-29 19:47:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thank you, Douglas, for the information on the FitzWalter connection. With that said, what is the consensus then on Ida Longespee who was married to William de Beauchamp? Leo has her in his database as the daughter also of William Longespee and Ela FitzPatrick which is the information I also have on her. If Ida Longespee FitzWalter is the daughter of William Longespee I, then the second Ida must belong somewhere else. I look forward to thoughts on this. I believe the Beauchamp/Longespee marriage produced (besides some of my lines) the Almy line of New England.
Thanks.
Steve Riggan

> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:23:50 -0700
> Subject: Re: Parentage of Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Robert
> From: ***@msn.com
> To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
>
> Dear Joe ~
>
> Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
>
> In answer to your question, the published lawsuit gives no further particulars regarding this matter.
>
> I suppose there could be many reasons for the 1249 lawsuit. I've suggested one plausible scenario. Offline today I asked our legal expert, Matt Tompkins, if he can suggest some other possible reasons for the lawsuit. If Matt replies, I'll let you know what he says.
>
> A lawsuit over failure to pay a legacy or failure to give a promised maritagium would be common reasons for a sister to sue her brother in this time period. I doubt, however, that an unpaid legacy was the reason for this particular lawsuit. Ida's father William Longespee had been dead since 1225, and the lawsuit is dated 1249. Also Ida's mother Countess Ela was still living.
>
> Because there is land involved, it looks to me like there was a problem with a maritagium that Ida thought she was promised. That's just a guess. It makes sense, though.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> On Monday, July 29, 2013 11:57:40 AM UTC-6, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> < The information on the four properties and the lawsuit is, of course, an <excellent find and useful information I had not seen before your 2011 post. <Is there more information lying in an archive somewhere about the lawsuit <beyond this short reference/abstract, that might illuminate the relationships <between these individuals? Your presumption on the reason for the lawsuit is <better than any guess I could invent on why Ida's 2nd husband would sue his <father'in'law, if that was instead the relationship.
> <
> < Joe C
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Jan
2013-08-01 00:41:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Douglas, thanks for posting your analysis of documents placing Ida Longespée, wife of Walter fitz Robert, in the Longespée family.

To your list of seventeenth century new world immigrants descended from Ida Longespée and Walter fitz Robert, one might add Anne (Revell) Curtis and her children who immigrated to New Jersey by 1684. See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2012-02/1328896552 for the detail's of Anne's descent.

Regarding the chronology and interpretation of the documents discussed in your post, I noticed entries in the Fine Rolls of Henry III that indicate that Walter Fitz Robert was still a minor in 1237 and that he received the lands he inherited from his father Robert in December 1239. Perhaps that suggests that it is unlikely that Walter Fitz Robert and Ida Longespée were married or had claimed Longespée land by 1236.

http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_004E.html#it057_009
21/57 (10 February 1237) "Order to Adam son of William that, for as long as the land formerly of Robert fitz Walter will be in the king’s hand, he is to cause the lepers of the hospital of St. Mary Magdalene of Hertford to have six loads of corn each year in five bushels from the mill of Hertingfordbury, formerly of the aforesaid Robert, from the time when that land was in the king’s hand and henceforward, as they were accustomed to receive them in the last years of the life of the same Robert."

http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_007E.html#it031_002
24/31 (18 December 1239) "The fine of Walter fitz Robert. Walter fitz Robert has made fine by 300 m. for having seisin of the lands formerly of Robert fitz Walter, his father, which were in the king’s custody. He is to render the aforesaid 300 m. within three years, namely 50 m. at Michaelmas in the twenty-fourth year, and 50 m. at Easter in the twenty-fifth year, and 100 m. thus from year to year at the same terms until the aforesaid 300 m. are paid to the king."

http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_007E.html#it048_002
"24/48 (24 February 1240) [No date]. The fine of Walter fitz Robert. Walter fitz Robert has made fine with the king by £447 3s. 10d. for having the king’s plough teams which are in the lands of the same Walter which the king had with him in custody, and for having the corn of the same king which is in the granges from the year last past, and similarly the corn in the aforesaid lands ploughed into the soil, and he is to render the aforesaid money to the king within three years, namely 223 m. 7s. 11d. per annum. In the first year, namely the twenty-fourth, he is to render 40 m. at St. John the Baptist and a moiety of the remaining aforesaid 223 m. 7s. 11d. of that first year at Michaelmas in the same year, and the other moiety at Easter in the twenty-fifth year; and in the following two years he is to render a moiety of the whole at Michaelmas and the other moiety at Easter."

I also noticed that in two entries (July 1235 and October 1267) in the Close Rolls of Henry III, the Ida who was the wife of William de Beauchamp is called kinswoman of the king (consanguinee regis). An entry (October 1261) addressing Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, does not refer to her as a kinswoman of the king, perhaps suggesting a more distant relationship than that of Ida, wife of William de Beauchamp. However, not all of the entries concerning Ida, wife of William de Beauchamp, refer to her as a kinswoman of the king.
Douglas Richardson
2013-08-01 01:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear Jan ~

The Fine Rolls you cite for Walter Fitz Robert make it clear that Walter Fitz Robert was born about 1218, he having made fine by 300 marks to have livery of his father’s lands on 18 Dec. 1239. Thank you for posting this information.

Yes, you're correct that the other Ida Longespée, wife of William de Beauchamp, was called kinswoman of the king in the Close Rolls. Here are those two references:

1. Cal. Close Rolls, 1234–1237 (1908): 119 (Ida, wife of William de Beauchamp, styled “king’s kinswoman” [consanguinee regis]).

2. Cal. Close Rolls, 1264–1268 (1937): 352 (Ida styled “king’s kinswoman”).

Having collected references to all king's kinsfolk in the medieval time period, I can say with confidence that the king tended to refer to his kinsfolk in a haphazard manner, ESPECIALLY those related to him through an illegitimacy such as the Longespee family was.

As such, one can not use such references to assume on this basis that one Ida or the other had a more distant relationship to the king, especially if their link to the king was through an illegitimacy.

In this same generation, for example, I've found several references that Stephen Longespee was styled "king's kinsman," but I have found no references that his other brother, Nicholas Longespee, Bishop of Salisbury, was ever so styled.

Here are the references I've found for Stephen Longespee as king's kinsman:

1. Cal. of Documents Rel. Ireland 1 (1875): 460 (Stephen Longespée styled “king’s cousin and a crusader” in 1250); 2 (1877): 36 (styled “king’s cousin”).

2. Francisque-Michel, Rôles Gascons 1 (1885): 467 (Stephen Longespée styled “kinsman” [consanguineus] by King Henry III in 1254).

3. Cal. Patent Rolls, 1247–1258 (1908): 211 (Stephen Lungespe styled “king’s kinsman”).

I haven't had the time to examine the ancestry of the New World immigrant, Anne (Revell) Curtis. When I have some time later this month, I'll try to take a look at the archives posts on this immigrant.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:41:48 PM UTC-6, Jan wrote:
> Douglas, thanks for posting your analysis of documents placing Ida Longespée, wife of Walter fitz Robert, in the Longespée family.
>
>
>
> To your list of seventeenth century new world immigrants descended from Ida Longespée and Walter fitz Robert, one might add Anne (Revell) Curtis and her children who immigrated to New Jersey by 1684. See http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2012-02/1328896552 for the detail's of Anne's descent.
>
>
>
> Regarding the chronology and interpretation of the documents discussed in your post, I noticed entries in the Fine Rolls of Henry III that indicate that Walter Fitz Robert was still a minor in 1237 and that he received the lands he inherited from his father Robert in December 1239. Perhaps that suggests that it is unlikely that Walter Fitz Robert and Ida Longespée were married or had claimed Longespée land by 1236.
>
>
>
> http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_004E.html#it057_009
>
> 21/57 (10 February 1237) "Order to Adam son of William that, for as long as the land formerly of Robert fitz Walter will be in the king’s hand, he is to cause the lepers of the hospital of St. Mary Magdalene of Hertford to have six loads of corn each year in five bushels from the mill of Hertingfordbury, formerly of the aforesaid Robert, from the time when that land was in the king’s hand and henceforward, as they were accustomed to receive them in the last years of the life of the same Robert."
>
>
>
> http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_007E.html#it031_002
>
> 24/31 (18 December 1239) "The fine of Walter fitz Robert. Walter fitz Robert has made fine by 300 m. for having seisin of the lands formerly of Robert fitz Walter, his father, which were in the king’s custody. He is to render the aforesaid 300 m. within three years, namely 50 m. at Michaelmas in the twenty-fourth year, and 50 m. at Easter in the twenty-fifth year, and 100 m. thus from year to year at the same terms until the aforesaid 300 m. are paid to the king."
>
>
>
> http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_007E.html#it048_002
>
> "24/48 (24 February 1240) [No date]. The fine of Walter fitz Robert. Walter fitz Robert has made fine with the king by £447 3s. 10d. for having the king’s plough teams which are in the lands of the same Walter which the king had with him in custody, and for having the corn of the same king which is in the granges from the year last past, and similarly the corn in the aforesaid lands ploughed into the soil, and he is to render the aforesaid money to the king within three years, namely 223 m. 7s. 11d. per annum. In the first year, namely the twenty-fourth, he is to render 40 m. at St. John the Baptist and a moiety of the remaining aforesaid 223 m. 7s. 11d. of that first year at Michaelmas in the same year, and the other moiety at Easter in the twenty-fifth year; and in the following two years he is to render a moiety of the whole at Michaelmas and the other moiety at Easter."
>
>
>
> I also noticed that in two entries (July 1235 and October 1267) in the Close Rolls of Henry III, the Ida who was the wife of William de Beauchamp is called kinswoman of the king (consanguinee regis). An entry (October 1261) addressing Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, does not refer to her as a kinswoman of the king, perhaps suggesting a more distant relationship than that of Ida, wife of William de Beauchamp. However, not all of the entries concerning Ida, wife of William de Beauchamp, refer to her as a kinswoman of the king.
r***@live.co.uk
2019-05-18 10:45:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, 29 July 2013 16:51:45 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Steve ~
>
>
>
> In summary, adequate evidence has been located which indicates that
> Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was a Longespée. In 1249 Walter Fitz
> Robert and his wife, Ida, sued William Longespée II regarding four
> properties then in Wiltshire, but now in Berkshire. The four
> properties in question were apparently part of the inheritance of
> Ida's mother, Countess Ela, who appears to have controlled the lands
> until 1236, when she released her lands to her son, William Longespée
> II. Ida's rights must predate 1236, as William Longespée II almost
> immediately conveyed these properties before 1239-40 to his seneschal,
> Sir Henry de la Mare. Thus William Longespée II can not have offered
> them as Ida's maritagium. This in turn implies that Ida Longespée was
> the daughter of William Longespée I and his wife, Countess Ela, and
> not William Longespée II.
>
>
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Hello Douglas,

Regarding the mother of Ida II Longespée:
I have read on this site that she was the daughter of an unknown mistress of William (I), the 3rd Earl of Salisbury. And therefore each Ida came from a different mother:

https://www.geni.com/people/Ida-secunda-de-Longespee/6000000013420152346

I wander please if you have anything to add to this?

Thank you very much.

Richard Ebdon.
Oliver Fowler
2020-06-05 15:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, July 29, 2013 at 6:51:45 PM UTC+3, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Steve ~
>
> There has been discussion in the past on the newsgroup regarding the
> placement of Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, in the
> Longespée family tree. Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub
> FitzWalter) identifies Ida as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl
> of Salisbury." The William Longespée intended here is presumably
> William Longespée I who died in 1226, not his son, William II, who
> died in 1250. If so, this would give Earl William Longespée I and his
> wife, Ela, two adult daughters named Ida, one of whom married Walter
> Fitz Robert, and the other who married William de Beauchamp.
> Curiously Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
> Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
> the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
> Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
>
> The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, as a Longespée
> has traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found
> in Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children
> of William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
> Salisbury, including:
>
> "Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
> genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
> duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
> [Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
>
> It is not known exactly why Ida Longespée is here styled Ida de Camyle
> in this record. I've assumed, however, that Ida may have had a brief
> Camville marriage previous to her known marriage to Walter Fitz
> Robert. If so, a previous Camvillle marriage would explain her use of
> the Camville surname as a grown adult. Ida's older brother, William
> Longespée II, is known, for example, to have married a member of the
> Camville family.
>
> There are two contemporary records which prove that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was in fact a Longespée. The first record comes from List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and Exchequer, which source contains an abstract of a letter dated 1261-1263 from Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, written to Walter de Merton, the king's chancellor, in which Ida specifically styles herself Ida Longespée:
>
> "152. Ida Longespée, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, to the same [Walter
> de Merton, Chancellor]: to bail two of her men appealed of homicide.
> [1261-1263]." [Reference: List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and
> Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 107-108].
>
> Elsewhere I find that Calendar of Liberate Rolls 5 (1961): 93 likewise refers to Ida, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, as "Ida Lungespee:"
>
> Date: 11 May 1162 — “Liberate to Geoffrey de Lezinan, the king’s brother, 40l. in recompense of a like sum received there of the issues of the manor of Henham [Essex] by the hands of Ida Lungespee." END OF QUOTE.
>
> To date to my knowledge no one has discovered Ida Longespée's
> maritagium, although she certainly had one in marriage. Recently I
> encountered a record which evidently concerns her maritagium. The
> record in question is a Wiltshire pleading which dates from 1249:
>
> "Walter son of Robert and Ida his wife, by Ida's attorney by writ of
> the present king, who brought an assize of novel disseisin against
> William Lungepeie for holdings in Scepperingge and Heniton, Farlegh'
> and Bidinham, have come and withdrawn by licence. It is agreed
> between them that Walter and Ida had put themselves utterly in
> William's grace for those holdings." [Reference: Clanchy, Civil Pleas
> of the Wiltshire Eyre 1249 (Wiltshire Rec. Soc. 26) (1971): 152].
>
> The lands involved in this lawsuit can be identified as Sheepbridge
> (in Swallowfield), Hinton (in Hurst), Farley [Hill] (in Swallowfield),
> and Diddenham (in Shinfield), all in modern Berkshire but formerly in
> Wiltshire. These lands were apparently held by William Longespée I
> and his wife, Countess Ela.
>
> VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 267-274 states that Sheepbridge "belonged with
> Hinton in 1236 to Ela, Countess of Salisbury." Countess Ela named
> here was the widow of William Longespée I. VCH's statement regarding
> Countess Ela's holding of these lands is based on a charter found in
> Calendar of Charter Rolls 1226–57, page 221, whereby the king
> confirmed a grant of Countess Ela of various lands to Lacock Abbey,
> in exchange for "10 l. yearly receivable ...... .of the manors of
> Shiperige and Henton, and the advowson of the church of Winterburn
> Shyreveton."
>
> The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=1dELAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Calendar+Charter+Rolls+1226&hl=en&ei=M-U4TrbTFYvXiALj163DDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Calendar%20Charter%20Rolls%201226&f=false
>
> Countess Ela's charter is undated but surely must date from around
> 1236. My files notes show the following information:
>
> "In Feb. 1236 her son and heir, William Longespée, guaranteed her
> gifts to Lacock Abbey, while she agreed to surrender all her lands,
> rents and rights to him on 1 Nov. following. On 25 Oct. 1236 Ela,
> Countess of Salisbury, reached agreement with William Longespée, her
> first born son, that she may grant a moiety of the manor of
> Heddington, Wiltshire to Lacock Priory, which property fell to her on
> the death of Maud de Mandeville, Countess of Essex and Hereford. In
> the winter 1236–7 she resigned her custody of the county of
> Wiltshire. She subsequently entered her religious foundation at
> Lacock, where she took the veil before spring 1238." END OF QUOTE
> FROM MY FILE NOTES.
>
> Following Countess Ela's surrender of her lands to her son, William
> Longespée II, he in turn granted the four properties in question,
> namely Sheepbridge, Hinton, Farley, and Diddenham, to his seneschal,
> Sir Henry de la Mare. The date of this grant is sometime before
> 1239-40.
>
> In that year Sir Henry de la Mare was involved in a legal action
> concerning these four properties. A reference to this lawsuit may be
> found in Maitland, Bracton’s Note Book 3 (1887): 286–287. This may
> be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=DtcQAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:LtFTiI1NIsEC&hl=en&ei=nmw5TsSXK42IsAKv3OEg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> So the question arises: When did Walter Fitz Robert and his wife, Ida
> Longespée, acquire their interest in the four properties? The answer
> to that question is not exact but surely it must have dated from the
> time that Countess Ela of Salisbury was holding these properties and
> before 1 Nov. 1236 when Countess Ela surrendered all her lands, rents,
> and rights to her son, William Longespée II. Walter and Ida can't
> have acquired their interest from William Longespée II, as once his
> mother released her lands to him, he almost immediately conveyed these
> four properties to his seneschal, Sir Henry de la Mare. One of these
> properties, Hinton, subsequently descended to Sir Henry de la Mare's
> daughter and heiress, Maud, wife of Peter de Montfort, and thence to
> her descendants [see VCH Berkshire 3 (1923): 247–260].
>
> So besides knowing that Walter Fitz Robert and Ida Longespée obtained
> their interest in the properties before 1236, what else can we know?
> More specifically, why would Ida claim these lands, if her brother had
> granted them to his seneschal?
>
> The answer to this question is not clear but a reasonable guess would
> be that these four properties were put up as Ida's maritagium when she
> was contracted to marry a Camville and that when the contracted
> Camville marriage failed to materialize or produced no issue, by the
> terms of the marriage contract, the lands returned to Ida's family.
> At that point, Ida's claim to the lands was essentially voided. This
> in turn would explain why Ida's brother, William Longespée II, felt
> free to grant these lands elsewhere to Sir Henry de la Mare.
>
> In summary, adequate evidence has been located which indicates that
> Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was a Longespée. In 1249 Walter Fitz
> Robert and his wife, Ida, sued William Longespée II regarding four
> properties then in Wiltshire, but now in Berkshire. The four
> properties in question were apparently part of the inheritance of
> Ida's mother, Countess Ela, who appears to have controlled the lands
> until 1236, when she released her lands to her son, William Longespée
> II. Ida's rights must predate 1236, as William Longespée II almost
> immediately conveyed these properties before 1239-40 to his seneschal,
> Sir Henry de la Mare. Thus William Longespée II can not have offered
> them as Ida's maritagium. This in turn implies that Ida Longespée was
> the daughter of William Longespée I and his wife, Countess Ela, and
> not William Longespée II.
>
> For interest's sake, the following is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Robert:
>
> Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Walter Aston, Christopher Batt, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, George & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Edward Bromfield, Nathaniel Browne, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew Clarkson, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Muriel Gurdon, Katherine Hamby, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Nathaniel Littleton, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Symon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stratton, James Taylor, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret Touteville, Olive Welby, John West, Thomas Yale.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> On Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:43:09 AM UTC-6, Steve Riggan wrote:
> < I have been doing some research on the families descended from Ida Longespee <and Walter FitzWalter versus the families of another Ida Longespee and second <husband William Beauchamp and am confused by the different information <regarding the parentage of these two women, obviously related. I am descended <from both women, multiple times through the Longespee/Beauchamp marriage, and <I have seen where Ida Longespee, wife of Walter FitzWalter, was thought to be <the granddaughter of William Longespee, 3rd Earl of Salisbury and other <research has indicated that she was his daughter and a sister of the same name <to Ida, wife of William Beauchamp. My question is, has any updated <information revealed the exact relationship of these women to William <Longespee? Hopefully, someone in the <newsgroup can clarify the lines. Thanks.
> <
> < Steve Riggan

Dear Douglas

What is the evidence that Ida Longespée, wife of Ralph de Somery and William de Beauchamp, was the daughter of Ela, Countess of Salisbury? Is it possible that she was the daughter of William Longespée by a different mother?

Thanks

Oliver Fowler
Loading...