Discussion:
Douglas Richardson please read
(too old to reply)
F***@aol.com
2005-12-09 13:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Dear Douglas;

I hate to change the subject, but the discussion on Eldred seems to
have followed the following passage.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
-- The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

You may have missed my post ***@aol.com Dec 4, 1:38 pm which I
reproduce below.

I am very interested in your opinion on this matter because I believe
it offers a reason for modifying your thoughts on Ketel FitzEldred and
my suggested half sister Goditha. I realize the documentation deficit
and have shown in my posts [ ***@aol.com
Nov 26, 4:50 pm and ***@aol.com Nov 26, 7:47 pm ] only *secondary
sources* for a first wife of Eldred.

Using your *rule of thumb* of 85 years for three generations, and your
prior suggestion of Gospatric FitzOrm born say 1105 gives us the
following.

Gospatric FitzOrm b. say 1105
Orm FitzKetel b. by extrapolation say 1077
Ketel FitzEldred by extrapolation say 1049
Eldred b. say 1020

This in my mind permits, without documentation, my suggestion that
Ketel and Goditha born of different mothers a generation apart.

Thanking you in advance.

Respectfully,

Dix Preston

In a message Douglas Richardson Dec 3, 8:04 pm Douglas wrote:

<<1. Eldred, born say 1060, died before 1093, married (as her 1st
husband) Beatrice Taillebois, daughter and heiress of Ives Taillebois
(died c. 1093), by an unknown 1st wife.>>

Dear Douglas:

I have collected some *evidence* that suggests Eldred was much before
the 1060 date you suggest. While I realize these are secondary, they
are all that I have gathered.

(1) *According to The Complete Peerage, the Tailboys/Talboys line
descends from Ivo Taillebois through his daughter Beatrice, who married
firstly Eldred, and secondly, Ribald. From the former union sprang the
line of William of Lancaster, and from the latter union came Ralph
Taillebois (son of Ribald and Beatrice) who married Agnes de Brus,
progenitor of the Tailboys/Talboys line. This author [unidentified at
the site] has yet to uncover the intervening generations between this
Ralph and William, shown above. Sources: CP: [Complete peerage] Vol
VII[358]; AR: [Ancestral Roots by Weis] Line 74A[35], Line 224[33-34],
Line 224A[34-37]; SGM [message archives]: Rosie Bevan.* Source: author
unidentified at site: http://www.geneajourney.com/talboys.html .

(2) *While William waited at Barking, other English lords in addition
to those who had already acknowledged him came in and made submission.
The Norman authorities say that the earls Edwin and Morcar were the
chief of these, and if not earlier, they must have submitted then. Two
men, SIWARD AND ELDRED [emphasis added], are said to have been
relatives of the last Saxon king, but in what way we do not know.*

*Copsi, who had ruled Northumberland for a time under Tostig, the
brother of Harold, impressed the Norman writers with his importance,
and a Thurkill is also mentioned by name, while "many other nobles" are
classed together without special mention. Another great name which
should probably be added to this list is that of Waltheof, Earl of
Northampton and Huntingdon [FDP Note: son of Siward], of distinguished
descent and destined later to an unhappy fate. All of these the king
received most kindly. He accepted their oaths, restored to them all
their possessions, and held them in great honour.* Source:
http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext05/7heng10.txt; The Project
Gutenberg EBook of "The History of England From the Norman Conquest
to the Death of John (1066-1216)," by George Burton Adams, Part 1.

(3) We know the Eldred above is not *Eldred of Northumbria, Death: ca
1038, murdered by Carl Thurbrandsson; Earl of Northumbria 1019-1038.
Source: Siward 'the Dane' of Northumbria; Death: 1055; Marr: ca 1041
G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - The Complete Peerage of
England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.*

(4) We know Siward who apparently submitted with Eldred was active in:
*A.D. 1054....This year went Earl Siward with a large army against
Scotland, consisting both of marines and land forces; and engaging with
the Scots, he put to flight the King Macbeth; slew all the best in the
land; and led thence much spoil, such as no man before obtained. Many
fell also on his side, both Danish and English; even his own son,
Osborn, and his sister's son, Sihward: and many of his house-carls, and
also of the king's, were there slain that day, which was that of the
Seven Sleepers.' Source: [ASC 139] "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,"
translated by The Rev. James Ingram, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.,
1934 (reprint of first edition, 1912), Everyman's Library, No. 624.*

(5) Siward is further dated * Siward Digera [*the Strong*] [= Old
Danish Sigwarth], earl of Deira and Northumbria [earl of Deira 1032 x
1033-1042, earl of Northumbria 1042-1055; d. 1055] Sources: [PASE,
cites The Dictionary of National Biography, 59:265-7 [ 20:722-4 ]; The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Ed. Michael Lapidge,
John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers, 1999), p. 466. "Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England,"
University of Cambridge, Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic,*
http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/pase/Level1/Level2/Level3/E.html courtesy
University of Cambridge PASE project, http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/

If this Eldred with Siward is the one we are pursuing, the following
source introduces a possible attachment to Eldred/Aldred/Ealdred
[Eldred of Northumbria, Death: ca 1038] son of Uchtred. His children
are identified in most literature, but excludes an Eldred. Eldred,
possible illegitimate son, half brother to Siward's wife daughter of
Eldred/Aldred/Ealdred which may be why they appeared together
submitting to William I.

(6) *Eldred' s Shropshire Land Holdings in Domesday 1086: Ealdred or
Eldred, a Saxon thane, and under-tenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire. He
was probably descended from the Ealdred of Bamborough, Saxon high
reeve, who governed between the Tyne and Forth, pre Conquest.* From:
Shropshire and the Domesday Book
:http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Shropshire.htm

<<On the issue of the birth date of William de Lancaster I, I see that
Keats-Rohan states that he first occurs in the records c. 1120. Can
anyone supply the documentation for that date?>>

In my original message ***@aol.com Nov 26, 4:50 pm I used a Ref 8
which is all I have which I got from the archives.

<<Ref 8: *If the confirmation mentioned below occurred in about 1120/30
then William (I) [(4) 1] was born well before 1115. He would have been
old enough to have had a son who could witness his confirmation and
himself to have been of age. This would push back William (I)'s birth
to about 1090. Both William (I) and William (II) would have been quite
old when they died...I don't think William (II) [(5) 1] was the son of
Gundreda de Warren. Her first husband died 1153 [CP XII/2:362]. William
evidently witnessed his father's confirmation (about 1120/30) to the
Hospital of St Peter, York {Moriarty in Washington's paper (already
cited) and he refers to the printing of the charters to St Peter's in F
W Ragg "Charters of St Peter's Hospital, York" in CW2 ix 237-239. I
take it this refers to "Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland
Antiquarian & Archaeological Society" (? second series) vol. IX].*
Source: Richard Borthwick; Subject: Re: Ivo and Lucy Talybois;
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval; Date: 1998/10/02

***@aol.com Nov 26, 6:34 pm writes:

<< 3. William I de Lancaster approx b. 1105, but probable b. bef 1100
[ref 8] d. 1170 [Farrer, Records of Kendale, vol I p.xii] [ref 8]
[Keats-Rohan, p. 539] m. unknown
4. William II de Lancaster b. bef 1120 d. 1184 [Farrer, Records of
Kendale, vol I p.xiii] [ref 8] m. Hawise de Stuteville [Keats-Rohan, p.
539] >>

<<*This* is quite radical and requires intense scrutiny. It would
throw quite a bit into confusion if this were true. Can you post the
complete quotation with underlying sources. Your ref merely *alludes*
to the text without quoting it. Thanks Will Johnson>>

***@aol.com Nov 28, 6:36 pm

<< ?William (II) [de Lancaster] witnessed his father's 1120/30
confirmation of Chetell's gifts to St Peter's Hospital, York >>

<<I question this identification. Although there is a person named
WILLIAM IN THIS CONFIRMATION [emphasis added], there is not indication,
to my mind, that this person was William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendall
who d 1170. Thanks Will Johnson>>

I have repeatedly asked Will to post this record, but since he hasn't
to date I assume he doesn't have it.

<<If Ketel Fitz Eldred was born say 1085, he obviously would not be the
father of Orm Fitz Ketel, whose only known wife, Gravelda, was born in
or before 1075.>>

I can only suggest that my scenario has Ketel FitzEldred say 1045-1050.
If true then your conclusion here, may need revision and I note you
previously said <<tentative dates on the family of Eldred based on
Keats-Rohan's arrangement of this family:>>

Some internet material is worthless and some good, particularly from
this Newsgroup. I have already explained I don't read Latin, I am
remote from any good library, and am confined to this magic little box.
Therefore, by posting that material I have amassed during my Preston
research I am looking to those with superior knowledge and intellect
for true answers. This Newsgroup is providing that scholarship I lack,
but the participants never seems to arrive at final conclusions after
much discussion. These threads have helped me considerably and I hope
the elusive Eldred will materialize in the records found in this
Newsgroup.

Respectfully,

Dix Preston
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-09 21:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dix ~

Regarding the pedigree you have set forth for Gospatric Fitz Orm, we
are certain only that his father was named Orm Fitz Ketel and that his
grandfather was named Ketel.

Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda of Dunbar, was born in or before 1075 -
a birthdate of 1070 would certainly be reasonable for her. If so, we
would expect that Orm was born in or before 1070. I might point out
that Orm's approximate birthdate would almost certainly fall in the
late 1060's or c. 1070, as the chronology of his descendants matches
those of his Dunbar inlaws who were born in that time period. The
suggestions we have seen here on this newsgroup that Orm Fitz Ketel was
born as late as 1080 is just plain wrong.

We know very little about Orm Fitz Ketel's actual life. He appears as
a witness to a charter dated sometime after 1094, but before 1102. He
was probably a tenant under Roger, Count of Poitou, in Lancashire.
I'll have more to say about this charter in a later post.

If so, then I think it would be likely that his father is the Ketel who
owned several manors in 1066 in Lancashire and Yorkshire. This Ketel's
lands were in the hands of other parties in later generations, which
suggests to me that either he or his likely son, Orm, were dispossed of
these lands either by forfeiture or rebellion. It is possible that Orm
Fitz Ketel lost his father's lands and was banished in 1102, along with
his overlord, Roger, Count of Poitou.

A good deal of the above is conjecture, as the records before 1150 are
not very good. However, to prove the connection between Orm Fitz
Ketel, living 1094/1102, and the Ketel living in 1066, I think we have
only to prove that the overlordship of Ketel's lands in 1066 was held
in the 1080's-1102 by Count Roger of Poitou. Then we should know if
the conjecture holds any weight. I suspect this can be established.
We know the approximate area over which Count Roger was overlord. We
need only to show that Ketel's lands in 1066 fall within that area.

I find no evidence to suggest that Orm Fitz Ketel, born say 1070, was
the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who occurs in Cumberland in the 1120's.
As best I can determine, Ketel Fitz Eldred was slightly younger than
Orm Fitz Ketel. This would have to be true, by the way, if Ketel Fitz
Eldred was the grandson of Ives Taillebois, as stated in Keats-Rohan's
Domesday Descendants. I believe that Ives Taillebois was born say
1040. If so, then the earliest his grandson, Ketel Fitz Eldred, could
be born would be 1075.

I think the evidence is iffy that Gospatric Fitz Orm was closely
related to Ketel Fitz Eldred. Following Ketel Fitz Eldred's death, his
nephew and heir, William de Lancaster I, exchanged two manors for
another one held by Gospatric Fitz Orm, son of Orm Fitz Ketel. One of
the properties exchanged by William de Lancaster I appears to have been
held earlier by Ketel Fitz Eldred. My good friend and colleague,
Andrew MacEwen, of Maine is of the opinion that this charter was a
simple exchange, and does not represent a settlement of inheritance.
Andrew is probably correct. He's had considerable experience with
charters in this time period.

The short end of it: More research needs to be done before anything
really concrete can be said about the pedigrees prior to Orm Fitz Ketel
or to Ketel Fitz Eldred. What can be said at present is that almost
everything in print about these people contains major statements of
error and pays little or no attention to the actual chronology. I find
Wilson's comments in Register of St. Bees are especially untrustworthy.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by F***@aol.com
Dear Douglas;
I hate to change the subject, but the discussion on Eldred seems to
have followed the following passage.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
-- The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
reproduce below.
I am very interested in your opinion on this matter because I believe
it offers a reason for modifying your thoughts on Ketel FitzEldred and
my suggested half sister Goditha. I realize the documentation deficit
sources* for a first wife of Eldred.
Using your *rule of thumb* of 85 years for three generations, and your
prior suggestion of Gospatric FitzOrm born say 1105 gives us the
following.
Gospatric FitzOrm b. say 1105
Orm FitzKetel b. by extrapolation say 1077
Ketel FitzEldred by extrapolation say 1049
Eldred b. say 1020
This in my mind permits, without documentation, my suggestion that
Ketel and Goditha born of different mothers a generation apart.
Thanking you in advance.
Respectfully,
Dix Preston
<<1. Eldred, born say 1060, died before 1093, married (as her 1st
husband) Beatrice Taillebois, daughter and heiress of Ives Taillebois
(died c. 1093), by an unknown 1st wife.>>
I have collected some *evidence* that suggests Eldred was much before
the 1060 date you suggest. While I realize these are secondary, they
are all that I have gathered.
(1) *According to The Complete Peerage, the Tailboys/Talboys line
descends from Ivo Taillebois through his daughter Beatrice, who married
firstly Eldred, and secondly, Ribald. From the former union sprang the
line of William of Lancaster, and from the latter union came Ralph
Taillebois (son of Ribald and Beatrice) who married Agnes de Brus,
progenitor of the Tailboys/Talboys line. This author [unidentified at
the site] has yet to uncover the intervening generations between this
Ralph and William, shown above. Sources: CP: [Complete peerage] Vol
VII[358]; AR: [Ancestral Roots by Weis] Line 74A[35], Line 224[33-34],
Line 224A[34-37]; SGM [message archives]: Rosie Bevan.* Source: author
unidentified at site: http://www.geneajourney.com/talboys.html .
(2) *While William waited at Barking, other English lords in addition
to those who had already acknowledged him came in and made submission.
The Norman authorities say that the earls Edwin and Morcar were the
chief of these, and if not earlier, they must have submitted then. Two
men, SIWARD AND ELDRED [emphasis added], are said to have been
relatives of the last Saxon king, but in what way we do not know.*
*Copsi, who had ruled Northumberland for a time under Tostig, the
brother of Harold, impressed the Norman writers with his importance,
and a Thurkill is also mentioned by name, while "many other nobles" are
classed together without special mention. Another great name which
should probably be added to this list is that of Waltheof, Earl of
Northampton and Huntingdon [FDP Note: son of Siward], of distinguished
descent and destined later to an unhappy fate. All of these the king
received most kindly. He accepted their oaths, restored to them all
http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext05/7heng10.txt; The Project
Gutenberg EBook of "The History of England From the Norman Conquest
to the Death of John (1066-1216)," by George Burton Adams, Part 1.
(3) We know the Eldred above is not *Eldred of Northumbria, Death: ca
1038, murdered by Carl Thurbrandsson; Earl of Northumbria 1019-1038.
Source: Siward 'the Dane' of Northumbria; Death: 1055; Marr: ca 1041
G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - The Complete Peerage of
England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.*
*A.D. 1054....This year went Earl Siward with a large army against
Scotland, consisting both of marines and land forces; and engaging with
the Scots, he put to flight the King Macbeth; slew all the best in the
land; and led thence much spoil, such as no man before obtained. Many
fell also on his side, both Danish and English; even his own son,
Osborn, and his sister's son, Sihward: and many of his house-carls, and
also of the king's, were there slain that day, which was that of the
Seven Sleepers.' Source: [ASC 139] "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,"
translated by The Rev. James Ingram, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.,
1934 (reprint of first edition, 1912), Everyman's Library, No. 624.*
(5) Siward is further dated * Siward Digera [*the Strong*] [= Old
Danish Sigwarth], earl of Deira and Northumbria [earl of Deira 1032 x
1033-1042, earl of Northumbria 1042-1055; d. 1055] Sources: [PASE,
cites The Dictionary of National Biography, 59:265-7 [ 20:722-4 ]; The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Ed. Michael Lapidge,
John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers, 1999), p. 466. "Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England,"
University of Cambridge, Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic,*
http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/pase/Level1/Level2/Level3/E.html courtesy
University of Cambridge PASE project, http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/
If this Eldred with Siward is the one we are pursuing, the following
source introduces a possible attachment to Eldred/Aldred/Ealdred
[Eldred of Northumbria, Death: ca 1038] son of Uchtred. His children
are identified in most literature, but excludes an Eldred. Eldred,
possible illegitimate son, half brother to Siward's wife daughter of
Eldred/Aldred/Ealdred which may be why they appeared together
submitting to William I.
(6) *Eldred' s Shropshire Land Holdings in Domesday 1086: Ealdred or
Eldred, a Saxon thane, and under-tenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire. He
was probably descended from the Ealdred of Bamborough, Saxon high
Shropshire and the Domesday Book
:http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Shropshire.htm
<<On the issue of the birth date of William de Lancaster I, I see that
Keats-Rohan states that he first occurs in the records c. 1120. Can
anyone supply the documentation for that date?>>
which is all I have which I got from the archives.
<<Ref 8: *If the confirmation mentioned below occurred in about 1120/30
then William (I) [(4) 1] was born well before 1115. He would have been
old enough to have had a son who could witness his confirmation and
himself to have been of age. This would push back William (I)'s birth
to about 1090. Both William (I) and William (II) would have been quite
old when they died...I don't think William (II) [(5) 1] was the son of
Gundreda de Warren. Her first husband died 1153 [CP XII/2:362]. William
evidently witnessed his father's confirmation (about 1120/30) to the
Hospital of St Peter, York {Moriarty in Washington's paper (already
cited) and he refers to the printing of the charters to St Peter's in F
W Ragg "Charters of St Peter's Hospital, York" in CW2 ix 237-239. I
take it this refers to "Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland
Antiquarian & Archaeological Society" (? second series) vol. IX].*
Source: Richard Borthwick; Subject: Re: Ivo and Lucy Talybois;
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval; Date: 1998/10/02
<< 3. William I de Lancaster approx b. 1105, but probable b. bef 1100
[ref 8] d. 1170 [Farrer, Records of Kendale, vol I p.xii] [ref 8]
[Keats-Rohan, p. 539] m. unknown
4. William II de Lancaster b. bef 1120 d. 1184 [Farrer, Records of
Kendale, vol I p.xiii] [ref 8] m. Hawise de Stuteville [Keats-Rohan, p.
539] >>
<<*This* is quite radical and requires intense scrutiny. It would
throw quite a bit into confusion if this were true. Can you post the
complete quotation with underlying sources. Your ref merely *alludes*
to the text without quoting it. Thanks Will Johnson>>
<< ?William (II) [de Lancaster] witnessed his father's 1120/30
confirmation of Chetell's gifts to St Peter's Hospital, York >>
<<I question this identification. Although there is a person named
WILLIAM IN THIS CONFIRMATION [emphasis added], there is not indication,
to my mind, that this person was William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendall
who d 1170. Thanks Will Johnson>>
I have repeatedly asked Will to post this record, but since he hasn't
to date I assume he doesn't have it.
<<If Ketel Fitz Eldred was born say 1085, he obviously would not be the
father of Orm Fitz Ketel, whose only known wife, Gravelda, was born in
or before 1075.>>
I can only suggest that my scenario has Ketel FitzEldred say 1045-1050.
If true then your conclusion here, may need revision and I note you
previously said <<tentative dates on the family of Eldred based on
Keats-Rohan's arrangement of this family:>>
Some internet material is worthless and some good, particularly from
this Newsgroup. I have already explained I don't read Latin, I am
remote from any good library, and am confined to this magic little box.
Therefore, by posting that material I have amassed during my Preston
research I am looking to those with superior knowledge and intellect
for true answers. This Newsgroup is providing that scholarship I lack,
but the participants never seems to arrive at final conclusions after
much discussion. These threads have helped me considerably and I hope
the elusive Eldred will materialize in the records found in this
Newsgroup.
Respectfully,
Dix Preston
W***@aol.com
2005-12-09 21:48:48 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/9/05 1:16:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< Orm's approximate birthdate would almost certainly fall in the late 1060's
or c. 1070, as the chronology of his descendants matches those of his Dunbar
inlaws who were born in that time period. The suggestions we have seen here
on this newsgroup that Orm Fitz Ketel was born as late as 1080 is just plain
wrong. >>


And since Doug like to parade this out over and over I respond as before :
"In a very significant article Kathleen Thompson has collated all of the
extant versions of the charter dated by Farrer to 1094 (Monasteries and Settlement
in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the Poitevin,
Transactions of the Record Society of Lancashire & Cheshire, CXL, 201-225). She concludes
that what Orm witnessed was most likely a confirmation and that the date was
closer to 1130."


Until the contents of this article as posted in a way that we can all review,
any attempt to force Orm to conform to a date for which we now know there is
a conflict is simply gratuitous flaggelation If a significant article shows
that Orm may have been active in 1130 NOT in 1090 that is quite a conflict
with Doug's insistence on the dating above.

So do we really need to go in these circles forever :)

Will
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-09 22:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will ~

I've seen Kathleen Thompson's article, through the courtesy of Mr.
Sharp. The points that Ms. Thompson raises are rather technical. I'll
be happy to discuss the article after I've had the opportunity to
review it more carefully.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
C***@aol.com
2005-12-09 21:55:34 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/9/2005 4:16:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

We know very little about Orm Fitz Ketel's actual life. He appears as
a witness to a charter dated sometime after 1094, but before 1102. He
was probably a tenant under Roger, Count of Poitou, in Lancashire.
I'll have more to say about this charter in a later post.

If so, then I think it would be likely that his father is the Ketel who
owned several manors in 1066 in Lancashire and Yorkshire. This Ketel's
lands were in the hands of other parties in later generations, which
suggests to me that either he or his likely son, Orm, were dispossed of
these lands either by forfeiture or rebellion. It is possible that Orm
Fitz Ketel lost his father's lands and was banished in 1102, along with
his overlord, Roger, Count of Poitou.

A good deal of the above is conjecture, as the records before 1150 are
not very good. However, to prove the connection between Orm Fitz
Ketel, living 1094/1102, and the Ketel living in 1066, I think we have
only to prove that the overlordship of Ketel's lands in 1066 was held
in the 1080's-1102 by Count Roger of Poitou. Then we should know if
the conjecture holds any weight. I suspect this can be established.
We know the approximate area over which Count Roger was overlord. We
need only to show that Ketel's lands in 1066 fall within that area.

I find no evidence to suggest that Orm Fitz Ketel, born say 1070, was
the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who occurs in Cumberland in the 1120's.
As best I can determine, Ketel Fitz Eldred was slightly younger than
Orm Fitz Ketel. This would have to be true, by the way, if Ketel Fitz
Eldred was the grandson of Ives Taillebois, as stated in Keats-Rohan's
Domesday Descendants. I believe that Ives Taillebois was born say
1040. If so, then the earliest his grandson, Ketel Fitz Eldred, could
be born would be 1075.

I think the evidence is iffy that Gospatric Fitz Orm was closely
related to Ketel Fitz Eldred. Following Ketel Fitz Eldred's death, his
nephew and heir, William de Lancaster I, exchanged two manors for
another one held by Gospatric Fitz Orm, son of Orm Fitz Ketel. One of
the properties exchanged by William de Lancaster I appears to have been
held earlier by Ketel Fitz Eldred. My good friend and colleague,
Andrew MacEwen, of Maine is of the opinion that this charter was a
simple exchange, and does not represent a settlement of inheritance.
Andrew is probably correct. He's had considerable experience with
charters in this time period.

The short end of it: More research needs to be done before anything
really concrete can be said about the pedigrees prior to Orm Fitz Ketel
or to Ketel Fitz Eldred. What can be said at present is that almost
everything in print about these people contains major statements of
error and pays little or no attention to the actual chronology. I find
Wilson's comments in Register of St. Bees are especially untrustworthy.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



Dear Doug,

As you forwarded to me the copy of Kathleen Thompson's article and I
reviewed it with my thoughts to you I cannot believe that you still are citing any
information about Lancashire and Orm fitz Ketel.

Kathleen Thompson has written an article dating and comparing the three
existing versions of the charter of Roger de Poitevin from 1094. She based her
analysis on variations in the script and also the wording of each version. The
oldest version of this charter she calls MSS. B which was the original
charter of Roger de Poitevin written shortly before 1094. The second version is
MSS A. which was drafted a short time later with provisional changes in text of
the charter and the last version is MSS C which was drafted in the 1130s when
St. Marys, Lancaster was in dispute over land with Shrewsbury Abbey. MSS C.
was created to show a claim to the disputed land was actually in their
foundation charter which is how this copy came to exist. Thompson does a nice job
of proving her analysis of the copies.

This is important to this discussion as only in MSS. C is Orm given as a
witness. He is simply listed as Orm --- Ketel. It was later that someone
supposed this to be Orm fitz Ketel. It could have easily been Orm [et] Ketel as
these were very common names in northern England in this period. As I told you
privately after seeing this article and Thompson's proof I certainly wouldn't
use it as any evidence in the case of Orm fitz Ketel. This is a modified
charter and the witnesses in MSS. C do not show up in the other charters. I am
sure the copyist knew of people with these names who existed in this time
period in Lancashire but the signature Orm ---- Ketel is not definitive and was
an addition to a partially forged document.

This is no indication that Orm fitz Ketel was from Lancashire or even
connected with Roger de Poitevin as this copy of the charter is not reliable.

The subject of Ivo Taillebois and his lands has been shown not to be factor
in the ancestry of Ketel son of Eldred. Ivo Taillebois' lands reverted to the
crown upon his death as he left no legitimate heirs.

Why are we going over the same ground again.

MichaelAnne
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-09 23:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Dear MichaelAnne ~

I wished I could join you in your stampede to judgement. However, Ms.
Thompson's article contains several points of conjecture (some
self-admitted), each of which require detailed study and analysis. If
her points of conjecture are incorrect, it follows that many of her
conclusions would necessarily be erroneous.

To be fair to Ms. Thompson, I'm unwilling to venture to offer an
opinion on her article until I'm more fully acquainted with the logic
of her arguments and the evidence she cites. To do this, I'd like to
consult with reputable historians in the field to see what they have to
say about the Thompson article, specifically her handling of the
witness lists, her method of dating documents, and her statements as to
the reliability of the various versions of Count Roger's gift to Sees
Priory. I can say this for now: I suspect some of Ms. Thompson's
methodology is flawed.

In short, more work needs to be done before we can accept Ms.
Thompson's article at face value. In the meantime, we have opportunity
to examine the surviving records for proof that Ketel, the Lancashire
landowner in 1066, was the father of Orm Fitz Ketel.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Chris Phillips
2005-12-09 23:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
To be fair to Ms. Thompson, I'm unwilling to venture to offer an
opinion on her article until I'm more fully acquainted with the logic
of her arguments and the evidence she cites. To do this, I'd like to
consult with reputable historians in the field to see what they have to
say about the Thompson article, specifically her handling of the
witness lists, her method of dating documents, and her statements as to
the reliability of the various versions of Count Roger's gift to Sees
Priory. I can say this for now: I suspect some of Ms. Thompson's
methodology is flawed.
You said only an hour ago that the points raised by Dr Thompson were rather
technical, and that you wanted the opportunity to review it more cartefully.

Fair enough. But if you want to "consult with reputable historians in the
field to see what they have to say about the Thompson article, specifically
her handling of the witness lists, her method of dating documents, and her
statements as to the reliability of the various versions of Count Roger's
gift to Sees Priory", wouldn't it be better, ss a matter of professional
courtesy, to do this BEFORE you make a public statement that you suspect her
methodology is "flawed"?

Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-10 00:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
Post by Douglas Richardson
To be fair to Ms. Thompson, I'm unwilling to venture to offer an
opinion on her article until I'm more fully acquainted with the logic
of her arguments and the evidence she cites. To do this, I'd like to
consult with reputable historians in the field to see what they have to
say about the Thompson article, specifically her handling of the
witness lists, her method of dating documents, and her statements as to
the reliability of the various versions of Count Roger's gift to Sees
Priory. I can say this for now: I suspect some of Ms. Thompson's
methodology is flawed.
You said only an hour ago that the points raised by Dr Thompson were rather
technical, and that you wanted the opportunity to review it more cartefully.
Fair enough. But if you want to "consult with reputable historians in the
field to see what they have to say about the Thompson article, specifically
her handling of the witness lists, her method of dating documents, and her
statements as to the reliability of the various versions of Count Roger's
gift to Sees Priory", wouldn't it be better, ss a matter of professional
courtesy, to do this BEFORE you make a public statement that you suspect her
methodology is "flawed"?
Of course, you know the answer - neither fairness nor courtesy has
anything to do with it. Dr. Thompson's approach _must_ be flawed
because it flies in the face of The True Solution - the same reason that
Ms. Guido's acceptance of Dr. Thompson's conclusions must represent a
"stampede to judgement", rather than resulting from a considered
evaluation. Who needs understanding when you have certainty.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-10 03:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd ~

I try to keep an open mind on all matters, including the Thompson
article. I promise to post all of the communications I receive
regarding the Thompson article. Hopefully we'll all learn something in
the process.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Of course, you know the answer - neither fairness nor courtesy has
anything to do with it. Dr. Thompson's approach _must_ be flawed
because it flies in the face of The True Solution - the same reason that
Ms. Guido's acceptance of Dr. Thompson's conclusions must represent a
"stampede to judgement", rather than resulting from a considered
evaluation. Who needs understanding when you have certainty.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-12-10 04:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
I try to keep an open mind on all matters, including the Thompson
article. I promise to post all of the communications I receive
regarding the Thompson article. Hopefully we'll all learn something in
the process.
That sounds like a good plan. Is this open-minded approach something
you have adopted since posting:

"your stampede to judgement."

and

"I suspect some of Ms. Thompson's methodology is flawed."

or, like many aspects of life, does the application of this ideal prove
harder in practice than in theory?

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-12-09 22:54:52 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/9/05 1:56:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< I am
sure the copyist knew of people with these names who existed in this time
period in Lancashire but the signature Orm ---- Ketel is not definitive and
was
an addition to a partially forged document. >>

Can you expand on this statement that MSS C is a "partially forged document"
? Is this statment only in reference to the addition of more names as
witnesses? Or something else?
Thanks
Will Johnson
C***@aol.com
2005-12-10 00:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will,

MSS. C had property added that was not granted to St. Marys in the original
foundation charter [ MSS. B]. I will supply Kathleen Thompson's versions of
both the original [MSS. B. and the latest copy [MSS. C] and you will be able to
see this for yourself. As she states in the 1130s St. Marys was involved in
a land dispute with Shrewsbury abbey over two pieces of the land listed for
the first time in MSS. C.


[C]
1130—50?
In the liame and in honour of’ the blessed and undivided Ti’initv, let it
be known to all those present as well as in the future that Earl Roger the
Poitevin for the salvation of his soul and also fbr the salvation of his father
Roger of Shrewsbury and his mother Countess Mabel, and for his brothers and
all his friends, gave to God and St Martin of Sees the church of St Mary of
Lancaster with everything which pertains to it, and part of the land of that
town from the old wall up to Godfi’ey’s orchard and up to the Prestegai; and
near Lancaster two properties, Aldehiflè [Lanes.] and Bulk [fin’merlv called
Newton, Lanes. 1 and what pertains to them; also the woods as fin’ as 1”rebroet
”’ with the title and dues which lie used to hold; and Anfrid of’ Montgomery
and whatsoever he holds of’ the aforementioned earl; and the church of
Heyshiam [Lanes.] with a third part of the land of the whole ~‘ill; and the church
of Cotgrave [Notts.] and the chui’eh of’ Crop~velI Butler [Notts.]; and the
church of II ‘i/ce1a~,;’° and the church of Croston [Lanes.]; and half the
church of’ Ecclestoii [Lanes.]; and the church of Childwall [Lanes.]; and the
church of Preston [Lancs.]2~ with a tithe of the demesne and of’ the fishery
and two bovates of land and all the tithes of’ the whole parish; and the
church of Kirkham I Lanes, j; and t he church of’ Ni ellitig near Lancaster,
Lanes,]; and the church of’ Bolton—le—Satids Lanes.] with a tithe of’ the denic’
snc and half’ of’ one carucate of’ land and all the tithes. He also gave in
Amouiiderness Poulton—le—Fylde [Lanes.] and whatsoever pertains to it and
the church with one earucate of laud and with all appurtenances. Besides he
gave a tithe of hunting and of’ the pasture of’ all his woods and a tithe of’
his fishery. He conceded also the draught of the weir of St Mary. Recently he
gave a tithe of foals and calves and lambs and goats and pigs and corn and
cheese and butter at Esianaheria2~ and at Salf’ord [Lanes.] and at \Vest Derbv
I Lanes.] and at Hale [Lanes.] and Everton [lanes. and \Vahton Lanes.] and
Great Crosby [Lanes.] and Raveiisnieols [Lanes.] and Crostoti I Lanes.] and Pres
— toil lanes, 12mt and Ribby [Lanes.] and Singleton [Lanes.] and Preesall I
Lanes.] and Middlctoii—iii—Lonsdale [Lanes.]
h I:,
and ()vcrton [Lanes.] and Skerton [Lanes.] and Bare I Lanes.] and Stapleton ‘
I’erne [Lanes.]tm’3 and Slyne I Lanes.]. All these things he gave fur the
honour of God and St Mary to feed the monks who in the same monastery sing
the office to God and St Mary, so freely that neither the monks nor their men
should render secular services to him or to his successors at any time and none
of his men should have power over these things or accept anything from there
or impose any other dues. All these titles and dues which he held in his
land he conceded to the monastery of St Mary of Lancaster. He also conceded that
if anyone wished to request the prayers and goodwill of the monastery of
Lancaster and gives to it part of’ his land even up to half, the earl most
willingly conceded. And after the earl himself conceded, Godfrey the sherifl’,~’5
hearing these things, gave the tithes of Bispham [Lanes.] and whatsoever he
used to hold in Lancaster, houses, an orchard; and Ralph Guernet three men in
Suffolk. The witnesses were the said earl and his daughter Sibyl, and
G[odfrey] the sherifI~7 and Albert Greslei,5’ R. son of Robert,”6 W[arin] Bussel,4°
A. his brother,67 P[agan] of ~ Ramu’nard,68 W. son of Ailuine, Orm, Ketel,
Uhf’ son of Thorolf, Romkil son of Raign’.
This is the original MSS. B from 1092-1094:

[B]
1092/4
In the name of the blessed aiid undivided ‘l’rinity, let it be known to all
in the future as well as those presetit that Earl Roger, known as the
Poitevin, in the year of the incarnation of our Lord 1094 fbr the souls of himself
and his forebears and heirs gave to God and St Martin and the brethren
dwelling now and in the future in the monastery of Sees freely and without
disturbance in perpetuity as alms the church of’ Lancaster with everything which
pertains to it, and part of the land of that town from the old wall up to Godfrey’
s orchard and up to the Presireguet;26 and near Lancaster two properties,
Aldchifl’e [Lanes.] and27 those things pertaining to them except the fIshery of
Bulk f~rmerly called Newton, I ~aiics. ] ; and Ansl’ricl of Montgomery and
whatsoever lie holds of the aforemen tiotie(l earl; and the cli u rch of’ I
leysliam [Lanes.] and whatsoever pertains to it; and the church of’ Preston
[Lanes. 121t and a tithe and whatsoever
pertains to it;
and the church of Esianeberiae,2° with its appurtenances; and the church of
Cotgrave [Notts.] and a tithe; and the church of Cropwcll Butler [Notts.]
and a tithe and whatsoever pertains to it; and the church of lVichc/ai3° and
whatsoever pertains to it;
also the tithes of
whatsoever o!~ his towIlshiif)s lie gave, namely
of I hale [ Lanes.] and ol’ ~Vest I )crhy [I ~ancs. I aIi(l of Sal
l~ril I Lanes.]; and £10 each year until he can assign property which will
render £10 per year;
and tithes of all his mares;
and
Hervey the priest of Thorpe37 and Benedict the priest of Eye38 and
whatsoever they hold of the earl;

K. Thompson
216
of Roger of Montbegon’s land of Kelsey [Lincs.]3’ and of Tealby [Lines.]
and of 771” and of all his demesne between the Ribble and the Mersey; and four
men of Ralph Gernet in Suffolk.
All these aforementioned
items Earl Roger thus freely conceded to St Martin that none of his men
shall have power over them except the monks.
With
witnesses: Godfrey the sherifl47 Oliver of TrSk:,~ Ernald BatheSo,~
Roger of Montbegon,3° Albert Greslet,3’
Roger son of Ernald,~
Hervey the priest~ Ansfrid of Montgomery,TM Richard Estormit.53

Ghar1er.~ o/ Roger the Poitevia
217
and if any man wishes to request the prayers and goodwill of the monastery
of Lancaster and gives part of his land even up to half, the earl now most
willingly concedes it, and if anyone without an heir born of a woman wishes to
give all his land and, as a monk of St Martin, shall then take up the monastic
habit there, the earl himself concedes it. And all these aforementioned
items he concedes as freely to St Martin as he himself holds them and none of his
men shall have power over them.
And after the earl himself had conceded, Geoffrey of Ria,43 hearing these
things, assigned to the aforementioned monastery a manor, namely Sanguicae;44
and Godfrey the sheriff the tithes of Bispham [Lancs.J36 and whatsoever he
holds in Lancaster, houses, the orchard, and the land which he himself has in
Little Lancaster; and Ralph Gernet45 four men in Suffolk. With witnesses:
Godfrey the sherifT47 Oliver of Trenblel,48 Ernald Barberoto,49 Richard
Estormit,55 Hervey the priest,53 Ansfrid of Montgomery,54 Ralph Ghernet,56 Odo,57
Roger of Montbegon,5° Albert Greslet,5’ William of Raimes,~ Roger son of
Ernald.52
This charter, which we have set out in writing, having been confirmed by the
aforementioned Earl Roger’s seal, is held in our possession in the
repository of charters.
Please understand that St. Marys, York was a cell of St. Martin at Sees in
Normandy. This is very similar to St. Bees which was a cell of St. Marys,
York. Each of these copies was deposited at St. Martin at Sees and also kept
at St. Marys., Lancaster. The register of St. Marys dates only from the
fifteenth century and the copyist assumed that MSS. C. was the correct copy and
that is the one that is entered in the register and the one Farrar had access to
which is why he dated this to 1094. He assumed it was the original not a
second copy.
MichaelAnne
W***@aol.com
2005-12-10 02:10:05 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/9/05 3:59:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, ClaudiusI0
writes:

<< MSS. C had property added that was not granted to St. Marys in the
original foundation charter [ MSS. B]. I will supply Kathleen Thompson's versions of
both the original [MSS. B. and the latest copy [MSS. C] and you will be able
to see this for yourself. As she states in the 1130s St. Marys was involved
in a land dispute with Shrewsbury abbey over two pieces of the land listed
for the first time in MSS. C. >>

Thank you for this MichaelAnne. I see this must be a PDF and you're using
some kind of text recognition. Some of the words in the article are mangled :)

I'll go through and see if I can't correct them.
Thanks
Will Johnson
C***@aol.com
2005-12-10 03:14:58 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 12/9/2005 7:00:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

Please understand that St. Marys, York was a cell of St. Martin at Sees in
Normandy.


This is in error. It should read St. Marys, Lancaster was a cell of St.
Martin at Sees in Normandy.

MichaelAnne
Douglas Richardson
2005-12-10 20:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dix ~

Regarding the pedigree you have set forth for Gospatric Fitz Orm, we
are certain only that his father was named Orm Fitz Ketel and that his
grandfather was named Ketel.

Orm Fitz Ketel's wife, Gravelda of Dunbar, was born in or before 1075 -
a birthdate of 1070 would certainly be reasonable for her. If so, we
would expect that Orm was born in or before 1070. I might point out
that Orm's approximate birthdate would almost certainly fall in the
late 1060's or c. 1070, as the chronology of his descendants matches
those of his Dunbar inlaws who were born in that time period. The
suggestions we have seen here on this newsgroup that Orm Fitz Ketel was
born as late as 1080 is just plain wrong.

We know very little about Orm Fitz Ketel's actual life. He appears as
a witness to a charter dated sometime after 1094, but before 1102. He
was probably a tenant under Count Roger of Poitou, in Lancashire.
I'll have more to say about this charter in a later post.

If so, then I think it would be likely that his father is the Ketel who
owned several manors in 1066 in Lancashire and Yorkshire. This Ketel's
lands were in the hands of other parties in later generations, which
suggests to me that either he or his likely son, Orm, were dispossed of
these lands either by forfeiture or rebellion. It is possible that Orm
Fitz Ketel lost his father's lands and was banished in 1102, along with
his overlord, Count Roger of Poitou.

A good deal of the above is conjecture, as the records before 1150 are
not very good. However, to prove the connection between Orm Fitz
Ketel, living 1094/1102, and the Ketel living in 1066, I think we have
only to prove that the overlordship of Ketel's lands in 1066 was held
in the 1080's-1102 by Count Roger of Poitou. Then we should know if
the conjecture holds any weight. I suspect this can be established.
We know the approximate area over which Count Roger was overlord. We
need only to show that Ketel's lands in 1066 fall within that area.

I find no evidence to suggest that Orm Fitz Ketel, born say 1070, was
the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who occurs in Cumberland in the 1120's.
As best I can determine, Ketel Fitz Eldred was slightly younger than
Orm Fitz Ketel. This would have to be true, by the way, if Ketel Fitz
Eldred was the grandson of Ives Taillebois, as stated in Keats-Rohan's
Domesday Descendants. I believe that Ives Taillebois was born say
1040. If so, then the earliest his grandson, Ketel Fitz Eldred, could
be born would be 1075.

I think the evidence is iffy that Gospatric Fitz Orm was closely
related to Ketel Fitz Eldred. Following Ketel Fitz Eldred's death, his
nephew and heir, William de Lancaster I, exchanged two manors for
another one held by Gospatric Fitz Orm, son of Orm Fitz Ketel. One of
the properties exchanged by William de Lancaster I appears to have been
held earlier by Ketel Fitz Eldred. My good friend and colleague,
Andrew MacEwen, of Maine is of the opinion that this charter was a
simple exchange, and does not represent a settlement of inheritance.
Andrew is probably correct. He's had considerable experience with
charters in this time period.

The short end of it: More research needs to be done before anything
really concrete can be said about the pedigrees prior to Orm Fitz Ketel
or to Ketel Fitz Eldred. What can be said at present is that almost
everything in print about these people contains major statements of
error and pays little or no attention to the actual chronology. I find
Wilson's comments in Register of St. Bees are especially untrustworthy.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

- Hide quoted text -
Post by F***@aol.com
Dear Douglas;
I hate to change the subject, but the discussion on Eldred seems to
have followed the following passage.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
-- The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
reproduce below.
I am very interested in your opinion on this matter because I believe
it offers a reason for modifying your thoughts on Ketel FitzEldred and
my suggested half sister Goditha. I realize the documentation deficit
sources* for a first wife of Eldred.
Using your *rule of thumb* of 85 years for three generations, and your
prior suggestion of Gospatric FitzOrm born say 1105 gives us the
following.
Gospatric FitzOrm b. say 1105
Orm FitzKetel b. by extrapolation say 1077
Ketel FitzEldred by extrapolation say 1049
Eldred b. say 1020
This in my mind permits, without documentation, my suggestion that
Ketel and Goditha born of different mothers a generation apart.
Thanking you in advance.
Respectfully,
Dix Preston
<<1. Eldred, born say 1060, died before 1093, married (as her 1st
husband) Beatrice Taillebois, daughter and heiress of Ives Taillebois
(died c. 1093), by an unknown 1st wife.>>
I have collected some *evidence* that suggests Eldred was much before
the 1060 date you suggest. While I realize these are secondary, they
are all that I have gathered.
(1) *According to The Complete Peerage, the Tailboys/Talboys line
descends from Ivo Taillebois through his daughter Beatrice, who married
firstly Eldred, and secondly, Ribald. From the former union sprang the
line of William of Lancaster, and from the latter union came Ralph
Taillebois (son of Ribald and Beatrice) who married Agnes de Brus,
progenitor of the Tailboys/Talboys line. This author [unidentified at
the site] has yet to uncover the intervening generations between this
Ralph and William, shown above. Sources: CP: [Complete peerage] Vol
VII[358]; AR: [Ancestral Roots by Weis] Line 74A[35], Line 224[33-34],
Line 224A[34-37]; SGM [message archives]: Rosie Bevan.* Source: author
unidentified at site: http://www.geneajourney.com/talboys.html .
(2) *While William waited at Barking, other English lords in addition
to those who had already acknowledged him came in and made submission.
The Norman authorities say that the earls Edwin and Morcar were the
chief of these, and if not earlier, they must have submitted then. Two
men, SIWARD AND ELDRED [emphasis added], are said to have been
relatives of the last Saxon king, but in what way we do not know.*
*Copsi, who had ruled Northumberland for a time under Tostig, the
brother of Harold, impressed the Norman writers with his importance,
and a Thurkill is also mentioned by name, while "many other nobles" are
classed together without special mention. Another great name which
should probably be added to this list is that of Waltheof, Earl of
Northampton and Huntingdon [FDP Note: son of Siward], of distinguished
descent and destined later to an unhappy fate. All of these the king
received most kindly. He accepted their oaths, restored to them all
http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext05/7heng10.txt; The Project
Gutenberg EBook of "The History of England From the Norman Conquest
to the Death of John (1066-1216)," by George Burton Adams, Part 1.
(3) We know the Eldred above is not *Eldred of Northumbria, Death: ca
1038, murdered by Carl Thurbrandsson; Earl of Northumbria 1019-1038.
Source: Siward 'the Dane' of Northumbria; Death: 1055; Marr: ca 1041
G. E. Cokayne, "The Complete Peerage," 1910 - The Complete Peerage of
England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the United Kingdom.*
*A.D. 1054....This year went Earl Siward with a large army against
Scotland, consisting both of marines and land forces; and engaging with
the Scots, he put to flight the King Macbeth; slew all the best in the
land; and led thence much spoil, such as no man before obtained. Many
fell also on his side, both Danish and English; even his own son,
Osborn, and his sister's son, Sihward: and many of his house-carls, and
also of the king's, were there slain that day, which was that of the
Seven Sleepers.' Source: [ASC 139] "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,"
translated by The Rev. James Ingram, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.,
1934 (reprint of first edition, 1912), Everyman's Library, No. 624.*
(5) Siward is further dated * Siward Digera [*the Strong*] [= Old
Danish Sigwarth], earl of Deira and Northumbria [earl of Deira 1032 x
1033-1042, earl of Northumbria 1042-1055; d. 1055] Sources: [PASE,
cites The Dictionary of National Biography, 59:265-7 [ 20:722-4 ]; The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Ed. Michael Lapidge,
John Blair, Simon Keynes and Donald Scragg (Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers, 1999), p. 466. "Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England,"
University of Cambridge, Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic,*
http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/pase/Level1/Level2/Level3/E.html courtesy
University of Cambridge PASE project, http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/
If this Eldred with Siward is the one we are pursuing, the following
source introduces a possible attachment to Eldred/Aldred/Ealdred
[Eldred of Northumbria, Death: ca 1038] son of Uchtred. His children
are identified in most literature, but excludes an Eldred. Eldred,
possible illegitimate son, half brother to Siward's wife daughter of
Eldred/Aldred/Ealdred which may be why they appeared together
submitting to William I.
(6) *Eldred' s Shropshire Land Holdings in Domesday 1086: Ealdred or
Eldred, a Saxon thane, and under-tenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire. He
was probably descended from the Ealdred of Bamborough, Saxon high
Shropshire and the Domesday Book
:http://www.infokey.com/Domesday/Shropshire.htm
<<On the issue of the birth date of William de Lancaster I, I see that
Keats-Rohan states that he first occurs in the records c. 1120. Can
anyone supply the documentation for that date?>>
which is all I have which I got from the archives.
<<Ref 8: *If the confirmation mentioned below occurred in about 1120/30
then William (I) [(4) 1] was born well before 1115. He would have been
old enough to have had a son who could witness his confirmation and
himself to have been of age. This would push back William (I)'s birth
to about 1090. Both William (I) and William (II) would have been quite
old when they died...I don't think William (II) [(5) 1] was the son of
Gundreda de Warren. Her first husband died 1153 [CP XII/2:362]. William
evidently witnessed his father's confirmation (about 1120/30) to the
Hospital of St Peter, York {Moriarty in Washington's paper (already
cited) and he refers to the printing of the charters to St Peter's in F
W Ragg "Charters of St Peter's Hospital, York" in CW2 ix 237-239. I
take it this refers to "Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland
Antiquarian & Archaeological Society" (? second series) vol. IX].*
Source: Richard Borthwick; Subject: Re: Ivo and Lucy Talybois;
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval; Date: 1998/10/02
<< 3. William I de Lancaster approx b. 1105, but probable b. bef 1100
[ref 8] d. 1170 [Farrer, Records of Kendale, vol I p.xii] [ref 8]
[Keats-Rohan, p. 539] m. unknown
4. William II de Lancaster b. bef 1120 d. 1184 [Farrer, Records of
Kendale, vol I p.xiii] [ref 8] m. Hawise de Stuteville [Keats-Rohan, p.
539] >>
<<*This* is quite radical and requires intense scrutiny. It would
throw quite a bit into confusion if this were true. Can you post the
complete quotation with underlying sources. Your ref merely *alludes*
to the text without quoting it. Thanks Will Johnson>>
<< ?William (II) [de Lancaster] witnessed his father's 1120/30
confirmation of Chetell's gifts to St Peter's Hospital, York >>
<<I question this identification. Although there is a person named
WILLIAM IN THIS CONFIRMATION [emphasis added], there is not indication,
to my mind, that this person was William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendall
who d 1170. Thanks Will Johnson>>
I have repeatedly asked Will to post this record, but since he hasn't
to date I assume he doesn't have it.
<<If Ketel Fitz Eldred was born say 1085, he obviously would not be the
father of Orm Fitz Ketel, whose only known wife, Gravelda, was born in
or before 1075.>>
I can only suggest that my scenario has Ketel FitzEldred say 1045-1050.
If true then your conclusion here, may need revision and I note you
previously said <<tentative dates on the family of Eldred based on
Keats-Rohan's arrangement of this family:>>
Some internet material is worthless and some good, particularly from
this Newsgroup. I have already explained I don't read Latin, I am
remote from any good library, and am confined to this magic little box.
Therefore, by posting that material I have amassed during my Preston
research I am looking to those with superior knowledge and intellect
for true answers. This Newsgroup is providing that scholarship I lack,
but the participants never seems to arrive at final conclusions after
much discussion. These threads have helped me considerably and I hope
the elusive Eldred will materialize in the records found in this
Newsgroup.
Respectfully,
Dix Preston
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...