Discussion:
Gilbert fitzReinfrid son and heir..Further..
(too old to reply)
butlergrt
2005-11-24 03:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening All.
Wishing 1stly a happy safe thanksgiving. On to business. It has struck me
also as odd in this family and at LEAST connected to the Botelers of
Beusy and Warrington, that IF:

Ethelred of Workington Lord of Kendal who had:
Ketal Lord of Kendal mar.Christiana who had:
Gilbert of Lord of Kendal mar. Godith, dau of Fulk fitzReinfrid( possible
descent of Fulk brother of Nicholas de Bacqueville son of Baldric Teutonis
who had:
William of Lancaster Lord of Kendal mar. Gundred, dau. of William de
Warrene 1st Earl Warren and 2nd Earl Surrey who had:
FIRST STRANGENESS:
If Isabel,the wife of William de Warrene I, is the daughter of Hugh "the
great" Count of Vermandois, then that makes Gundred related within 120
years or so to 2 saxon kings of England a ggggrandaughter and cousin of a
degree or 2 to Phillip King of France, Aunt-in-law to Hamelin Plantagenet
and a cousin of one degree to a few, to most of the Plantagenet line, and
WTC, yet alone a her son, William of Lancaster II, a gggg grandson of
count Fulk IV and the line of Anjou and related to the Norman -saxon kings
of England he was their cousin and no small wonder he was Steward to
Henry, he was his cousin of a few degress and highly connected of course.
William of Lncaster II, wife Hawise d'estoutville descended from the line
of de Verduns is also no small line.
SO... Here we have their daughter Hawise who marries Gilbert fitzReinfrid
son of Gilbert(so it is said) son of Roger fitzReinfrid de Breure,
apparently nobodys. At that day in age? that wouold be beyond belief I
think, but let us say it did happen, Hawise with the obvious pedigree that
she has married Gilbert fitzReinfrid and his pedigree was as is generally
stated and believed,
OK she just married her 1st cousin once removed as the other allegation is
that Ivo Taillebois' youngest son was Roger but doubled back on that line
also. I would think with religous intensity at that time on marriages and
involving kings relations there would be a papal dispensation, would there
not??? This is another reason I am having a hard time buying the line of
Gilbert FitzReinfrid!
Here again you have a line that goes from a fitz to a Lancaster to
Lancaster to a fitz and back to a Lancaster again.
There is another interesting side connection with this and that is of the
Saville and Botelers of Skelton, Gilbert fitzReinfrids line marries back
and forth with the Lindseys and the Brus and it is the Botelers of Skelton
but held of Edmund Boteler gggrandson Edmond Boteler of Ireland that is
claimed no relation, bet if we dig deep enough we will find that it is and
thru Gilbert FitzReinfrid.
Ya'll have a great Thanksgiving and enjoyable holiday
season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Truly!!!!!!!!!
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-24 05:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Gilbert of Lord of Kendal mar. Godith, dau of Fulk fitzReinfrid( possible
descent of Fulk brother of Nicholas de Bacqueville son of Baldric Teutonis
William of Lancaster Lord of Kendal mar. Gundred, dau. of William de
There seems to be some conflict regarding the reconstruction of this
pedigree. Michael Anne Guido, in the latest _Foundations_, shows the
pedigree as you give it (only she gives no indication of Godith's
parents, citing Prescott's 1897 edition of the _Register of the Priory
of Wetherhal_ (C&WA&AS Records Series, vol.3). However, Keats-Rohan
shows it differently, following Washington in Trans. C&WA&AS 62 (1962)
to show William de Lancaster as nephew of Ketel son of Eldred, making
Godith, wife of Gilbert, Ketel's sister. The latter appears to be the
more accurate, as in a contemporary charter he refers to Ketel as his
avunculus = (properly maternal although sometimes used in a generic
sense) uncle.
Post by butlergrt
If Isabel,the wife of William de Warrene I, is the daughter of Hugh "the
great" Count of Vermandois, then that makes Gundred related within 120
years or so to 2 saxon kings of England a ggggrandaughter and cousin of a
degree or 2 to Phillip King of France, Aunt-in-law to Hamelin Plantagenet
and a cousin of one degree to a few, to most of the Plantagenet line, and
WTC, yet alone a her son, William of Lancaster II, a gggg grandson of
count Fulk IV and the line of Anjou and related to the Norman -saxon kings
of England he was their cousin and no small wonder he was Steward to
Henry, he was his cousin of a few degress and highly connected of course.
[See the end of the post about this sentence.]
Post by butlergrt
William of Lncaster II, wife Hawise d'estoutville descended from the line
of de Verduns is also no small line.
SO... Here we have their daughter Hawise who marries Gilbert fitzReinfrid
son of Gilbert(so it is said) son of Roger fitzReinfrid de Breure,
I think you have an extra Gilbert here - the husband of Hawise is nog
son of Gilbert, but son of Roger. Further, I am not sure that the "de
Breure" is authentic. Could you cite a contemporary source for it.?
Post by butlergrt
apparently nobodys. At that day in age? that wouold be beyond belief I
Were they really nobodies? "Somebodyness" is all relevant -
particularly if, as you feel comfortable in assuming below, he was such
a close kinsman - it is hard to be both close kin and unbelievably
socially distant at the same time (. . . not that I think they really
were closely related). The fact is, Isabel, a person of close royal
connections, married a little below her station in marrying a non-royal,
distant kinsman of the King of England. Gundred married significantly
below her station, as daughter and widow of Earls, marrying a local
baron. Her son William appears to have married at a similar status to
his father's, not his mother's, and from their, a daughter marrying a
lesser local gent should be a lot less surprising than you make it out
to appear. Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, from his perspective, was not
marrying the great-great-great-great- granddaughter of an Anglo-Saxon
king - he was marrying the daughter of a _local_ landholder.
Post by butlergrt
think, but let us say it did happen, Hawise with the obvious pedigree that
she has married Gilbert fitzReinfrid and his pedigree was as is generally
stated and believed,
This is, perhaps, more of an assumption than is prudent.
Post by butlergrt
OK she just married her 1st cousin once removed as the other allegation is
that Ivo Taillebois' youngest son was Roger but doubled back on that line
also. I would think with religous intensity at that time on marriages and
involving kings relations there would be a papal dispensation, would there
not??? This is another reason I am having a hard time buying the line of
Gilbert FitzReinfrid!
Yes, but is the fault at the bottom of the pedigree, or the top. Who
_says_ that Roger is son of Ketil? His own name suggests otherwise.
Given that Ivo de Taillebois land passed through his daughter Beatrice,
tracing this family from a son of Ivo is problematic. It is perfectly
true that they would not have permitted a first, or even second cousin
marriage, but given the surviving references to Gilbert Fitz Roger Fitz
Reinfrid, it hardly seems a stretch to conclude that the pedigree is
flawed in making Roger the son of Ketel, son fo Eldred.
Post by butlergrt
Here again you have a line that goes from a fitz to a Lancaster to
Lancaster to a fitz and back to a Lancaster again.
How so?
Post by butlergrt
There is another interesting side connection with this and that is of the
Saville and Botelers of Skelton, Gilbert fitzReinfrids line marries back
and forth with the Lindseys and the Brus and it is the Botelers of Skelton
but held of Edmund Boteler gggrandson Edmond Boteler of Ireland that is
claimed no relation, bet if we dig deep enough we will find that it is and
thru Gilbert FitzReinfrid.
This has me completely lost. I just can't follow these streams of
consciousness. By the time I get to the end, I don't know to what "is
and is thru Gilbert FitzReinfrid" is refering. I fear this will come
out sounding like a grammar flame or as condescention, neither of which
is the intent, but here goes. Please use shorter sentences that convey
individual ideas (one subject, one verb), with clear association between
the subjects and verbs, and among the pronouns and nouns. If these
ideas are to be tied together, use paragraph-level structure for that.
While this may initially take you more time to type, it will reduce the
need to repeat it to make your point understood, as you will have to do
here.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-25 07:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

If the Latin word matertera did not "properly" connote a maternal aunt
in this time period in England, then neither did avunculus "properly"
connote a maternal uncle in this time period. In point of fact, both
words had altered from the classical meaning to mean either aunt and
uncle, be it paternal OR maternal.

The noted historian, Dr. Donald C. Jackman, reports in Prosopon, No. 8
(November 1997) that "the word avunculus is known for a number of
situations where it cannot possibly mean mother's brother." I believe
Mr. Jackman knows whereof he speaks. Here are his degrees:

B.A. Medieval Studies/History '81 ((Penn State)
M.A. History '83 ((Penn State)
M.Phil. History '85 (Columbia)
Ph.D. History '88 (Columbia)
M.A. Applied Linguistics '03 (Penn State)

The comments by Dr. Jackman can be found online at the following
weblink:

http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/Files/Pros/PRSPN8.pdf

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-25 17:55:49 UTC
Permalink
[please do not copy my email on your posts to the group]
Post by Douglas Richardson
If the Latin word matertera did not "properly" connote a maternal aunt
in this time period in England, then neither did avunculus "properly"
connote a maternal uncle in this time period.
There is a difference between 'proper' usage and 'actual' usage, the
distinction I was drawing. Likewise, contrary to the conditional you
have presented here, 'proper' usage of one Latin word did not depend on
'proper' usage of another - why would the usage of _avunculus_
necessarily depend on the usage of _matertera_, as you have configured
the conditional?


In point of fact, both
Post by Douglas Richardson
words had altered from the classical meaning to mean either aunt and
uncle, be it paternal OR maternal.
Again, proper vs. actual. And while we are at it, "in this time period"
is rather vague. The earliest example I find in the archives of
avunculus meaning paternal uncle is from the 1260s, a good 150 years
after the time we are talking about.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The noted historian, Dr. Donald C. Jackman, reports in Prosopon, No. 8
(November 1997) that "the word avunculus is known for a number of
situations where it cannot possibly mean mother's brother."
The whole article deals with extending terms of relationship from their
precise meaning to more varied uses, which is exactly what I described
("properly maternal although sometimes used in a generic sense"). The
very concept that the words were being "extended" indicates that there
was a precise meaning that they were being extended from, and for
avunculus that was maternal uncle. Likewise, Jackman's only specific
example is not a case where paternal uncle could possibly be intended.
It takes more than just a generic statement that sometimes a word was
used differently to draw a general rule about a specific time, place,
and usage.
Post by Douglas Richardson
I believe
And taking a quote out of context, then running off the list of degrees
earned by the person in question is somehow supposed to demonstrate how
avunculus was used in Northern England in the 1120s? I am little
impressed by such debating tricks.

taf
F***@aol.com
2005-11-26 21:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup;

I have been following this recent discussion and have studied the
archives in considerable detail. I offer the following theory with
references for your consideration.

The approximate dates in the chart below were calculated using a dating
model I developed for the Preston line which has proved to be a
remarkably accurate model when interleafed with actual records.

Descendants of Eldred of Northumbria

1. Eldred/Etheldred of Northumbria (approx b. 1018) alive 1086 d. bef
1093 [Keats-Rohan p. 1121] m. (1) Aldgytha/ Adgitha [ref 1] Eldred aka
Etret aka Ughtret and others
2. Ketel FitzEldred (approx b. 1047) alive 1020-1030 [ref 2] m.
Christiana [ref 2]
3. Orme FitzKetel (approx b. 1076) d. ca 1135/40 [Ref 3] m. Gunhilda
FitzGospatric est b. 1072; dau Gospatric I the Earl d. 1074/5
[Keats-Rohan, p.221]
4. Gospatric FitzOrme (b. 1100-1110 d. 1179 [literature] m. Egilina de
Engaine [traded for Workington with cousin William de Lancaster I]
4. Osulf FitzOrme [ref 3] of Preston Richard (approx b. 1105) younger
brother to Gospatric) alive 1189-1199 [Ref 4] m. unknown
5. Uchtred FitzOsulf aka Richard de Preston I [approx b. 1134 [ref 5]
m. possibly dau Adam D'Avranches [inferred from 1190-1220 Farrer,
Records of Kendale, volume 2, page 113.]
6. Richard de Preston II [ref 6] [approx b. 1163] m. Erneburgh le
Fleming
3. William FitzKetel [ref 2]
*2nd Wife of Eldred of Northumbria: Beatrice de Taillebois, dau Ivo
Taillebois and unknown wife. [Keats-Rohan p. 1121] Ivo and Eldred were
contemporaneous therefore his est b. 1020-1030 [Scenario below]
[Keats-Rohan, p. 539]
2 . Goditha FitzEldred de Taillebois approx b. 1076 [Keats-Rohan, p.
539] [Scenario below] m. Gilbert de Lancaster [Keats-Rohan, p. 539]
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]
5. Hawise de Lancaster m. Gilbert FitzReinfred [Farrer Records of
Kendale, vol I p.2; 1189. Grant by King Richard confirming his
father's gift (Henry II) of Barony of Kendal and Hawsie de Lancaster
as his wife.]
4. Avice de Lancaster [Keats-Rohan, p. 539] m. 1st William II Peverel
(his 2nd wife)of Nottingham
*2nd Husband of Avice de Lancaster: [Keats-Rohan, p. 539
Richard de Morville [Keats-Rohan p. 539]

*2nd Wife of William I de Lancaster: Gundred de Warren 1117 - 1166 [ref
8][Keats-Rohan, p. 539] widow of Roger, Earl of Warwick d. 1153
[Keats-Rohan, p. 539]

3. Gilbert FitzGilbert de Stainton [no proof exists; chronologically
possible; long associated with the Lancaster family but I don't
believe son of William I; not unreasonable to expect Gilbert & Goditha
to name a son Gilbert] m. unknown [great grandfather of Erneburga le
Fleming m. Richard de Preston II (approx b. 1163) grandson of Osulf of
Preston Richard]
4. Christina de Stainton approx b. 1105 m. Michael II le Fleming approx
b. 1005
5. Anselm le Fleming approx b. 1134 m. Agnes Dunbar great grandaughter
of Gospatric I
6. Erneburgha le Fleming approx b. 1163 m. Richard de Preston II approx
b. 1163

3. Nicholas de Radcliffe [ref 9]


SCENARIO: The best date I have been able to find and estimate for Ivo
de Taillebois' birth in Normandy is about 1030. If he married 1st at
20 to N.N., one can estimate Beatrice de Taillebois born about
1050-1055. If she married Eldred at about 17-20 (after the conquest),
then Ketel's half sister Goditha and possibly her brother who I
believe was Gilbert de Stainton must have been born between 1070 and
1075. Eldred, who apparently died before Beatrice's father Ivo, may
have held property in her right that passed to Ketel generally
considered the 3rd Baron Kendal. Apparently she married Ribald as a
widow, about 1092/3, and was young enough to have 4 children (Ralph
Taillebois, Hervey, Rainald, and William) by him who inherited much of
Ivo's property which was her inheritance from Ivo. Incidentally,
Farrer argues persuasively that no Barony of Kendale/Kendal existed
prior to 1189 [Introduction, Records of Kendale, Vol. I]. Therefore,
the flow of barony succession often quoted did not exist. Ivo was first
Lord Kendal, lands reverted to the crown upon death, followed by
Eldred's (died before Ivo) son Ketel granted his lands probably as
Eldred's son who had no male issue with Ivo's daughter. Lordship of
Kendale/Kendal passed to William de Lancaster (name changed from
Taillebois by King's charter) either via grant or his father Gilbert,
married to Eldred and Beatrice's daughter Goditha, of Ivo
Taillebois' fief. (half sister to Ketel.) Thence, to William de
Lancaster II and heirs and finally Gilbert FitzReinfrid m. William
II's dau Hawise and became first Baron Kendal by King's charter.
Ketel's son Orm received Seaton and other lands from Gunhilda's
brother Waltheof upon their marriage, probably of more value, and
Kendal went to his nephew William de Lancaster I. Also, it is apparent
that Ketel owned an area called Preston near Kendal which later was
divided into Preston Richard owned by Osulf's grandson and a long
line of individuals named Richard de Preston. The other portion of
Preston went through Gospatric FitzOrme to his grandson Patrick de
Culwen who named it Preston Patrick.

Ref 1: " ELDRED or ETHELDRED, second feudal Lord of Kendal, who m.
Adgitha, and was s. by his son, KITEL, third Baron of Kendal." Source:
"A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great
Britain and Ireland Enjoying Territorial Possessions or High Official
Rank; but Uninvested with Heritable Honours." by John Burke, Esq.
vol. I, 1834.

Ref 2: "1120-1130; Chetel son of Eltred, by the advice of Christiana
his wife and William his son, and at the instance of archbishop
Thurstan, gave to the monks of St. Mary's, York, the church of Clapaham
and one carucate of land, the church of Kirkebi Kendale, the church of
Heversham, the church of Kirkebi Lonesdale and the lands belonging to
these churches; also the vill called Hotun, the church of Bethum and
land called Hafreb[r]ec, and the church of Burton and one carucate of
land. Witnesses: Archbishop Turstin, Christiana (the donor's) wife.
Archil the seneschal, Ralph Lasne (A sinus), Yvo son of Forne,
Ravenchil son of Suter. From the original (?) D. at Levens; Donsworth's
MS. CLIX, f. 180." (Farrer, Records of Kendale, Vol II, p 142)

Ref 3: "Walter L. Sheppard in his work on Carleton takes the
Harringtons back to Ketel fitz Eldred and cites Moriarty Notebooks
XIII:92 and XIX:59. I do not have what Moriaty cites. He also cites VCH
Lancs. III:171; V:246; VIII: 202, 324,232,413 for Osulf down to Robert
who married Agnes Cansfield.
16. Usulf, Ld. of Flimby and Harington.
32.Orm, thegn of Flimby, d. c. 1135/40.
33. Gunhilda.
64. Ketel.
66. Gospatric, d. 1074
67. sister E. Northumberland.
128. Eldred."

Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval; Kay Allen Subject: Re: Early
Haringtons in Cumberland; Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003

Ref 4: 1189-1199ca: "Osulf of Flemingby of Cumberland made a grant of
land to the Priory of Carlisle "eighty years after Magnus Barelegs
perished in Ireland" [Grimble, 19]. He flourished during the time of
Richard I, who reigned from 1189 to 1199." Source: "Medieval
English Ancestors of Robert Abell" by Carl Boyer. FDP Note: "The
Vikings of Strangford Lough and The death of Magnus Barelegs
1103A.D." By Albert William Kelly Colmer, Consultant Historian.
Source: http://www.irishsecrets.ie/history-secrets/magnus-barelegs/

Ref 5: "ca1140-1184; In the time of Norman de Redeman, a grant of the
Manor of Tranton to him from Stiffinus, son of Dolphin de Trimbie.
Witnesses: Robertus de Morisbe, Garnacius de Huencurte, Adam Morisbe,
Huctredus, filius Osulfe, Willelmus de Lowdar, Willelmus et
Thomas...filius Adam de Morland, Adam Sillcet (Selside) &c." Source:
"The Redmans of Levens & Harwood"; by W. Greenwood, 1905, page 12.

Ref 6: "1170-1184; Uctred son of Osulf [de Preston :Richard] attested
charters of William de Lancaster II; Farrer, Lanes. Pipe R.,
443."(Farrer Vol II, p 202)

Ref 7: "1190-1220; Richard son of Hutred son of Osolf confirmed his
father's gift to the canons, namely the land between the brook and the
land of Henry de Mamecestre, son of Geoffrey [de Cheteham] on the east
side of the way which leads to Wathsuthenan, where their buildings
stand etc. (as above); Cockersand Chartul, 1002." (Farrer Vol II, p.
202)

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

Ref 9: Also in the literature, it is suggested "Nicholas de Radcliffe
b. 1097/1100 is the son of Gilbert de Furnesio who married Goditha"
who must have been the Gilbert who married Ketel's sister.

Forbes Dix Preston
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 04:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@aol.com
5. Uchtred FitzOsulf aka Richard de Preston I [approx b. 1134 [ref 5]
m. possibly dau Adam D'Avranches [inferred from 1190-1220 Farrer,
Records of Kendale, volume 2, page 113.]
I would be _very_ careful about this. In general, people just didn't
have completely different names, and such constructs have been used by
less-that-scrupulous genealogists to link a dead-end line onto an
earlier authentic tree. Do you have any documents that explicitly call
Post by F***@aol.com
Ref 5: "ca1140-1184; In the time of Norman de Redeman, a grant of the
Manor of Tranton to him from Stiffinus, son of Dolphin de Trimbie.
Witnesses: Robertus de Morisbe, Garnacius de Huencurte, Adam Morisbe,
Huctredus, filius Osulfe, Willelmus de Lowdar, Willelmus et
"The Redmans of Levens & Harwood"; by W. Greenwood, 1905, page 12.
doesn't seem relevant.

taf
F***@aol.com
2005-11-28 14:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@aol.com
5. Uchtred FitzOsulf aka Richard de Preston I [approx b. 1134 [ref 5]
m. possibly dau Adam D'Avranches [inferred from 1190-1220 Farrer,
Records of Kendale, volume 2, page 113.]
I would be _very_ careful about this. In general, people just didn't
have completely different names, and such constructs have been used by
less-that-scrupulous genealogists to link a dead-end line onto an
earlier authentic tree. Do you have any documents that explicitly call
Post by F***@aol.com
Ref 5: "ca1140-1184; In the time of Norman de Redeman, a grant of the
Manor of Tranton to him from Stiffinus, son of Dolphin de Trimbie.
Witnesses: Robertus de Morisbe, Garnacius de Huencurte, Adam Morisbe,
Huctredus, filius Osulfe, Willelmus de Lowdar, Willelmus et
"The Redmans of Levens & Harwood"; by W. Greenwood, 1905, page 12.
doesn't seem relevant.>>

Dear Todd

I have no documentation that says <"Uchtred alias Richard" or vice
versa? > Wouldn?t it be wonderful if we all had original documentation
for everything.

The reference I gave was not to define the <"Uchtred alias Richard" or
vice versa? > but to demonstrate the difficulty scribes had with the
spelling of individual names. Wouldn?t it be wonderful if all the
scribes would write the names correctly and consistently.

I have been working with an English colleague, a Preston descendant
whose avocation is our family history, who was educated in medieval
history and reads the records he finds in Latin. We were discussing an
account I found.

Early History of PRESTON PATRICK: <
http://www.fox73.freeserve.co.uk/page7.html>

QUOTE We first hear of Preston in the Domesday Book, compiled in the
reign of William the Conqueror in 1086. It was mentioned then as one of
the manors held by Totfin Preston or "Priest-Town" indicates some close
relationship with the Church. The second half of the name is a later
addition, supposed to have been received from Patrick de Culwen,
ancestor of the Curwen's of Workington. PRESTON RICHARD, which is also
served by St. Patrick's Church, is also an ancient settlement, being
known at the time of the Domesday Survey as Preston Uethred, from its
Saxon owner. Later it was called Preston Richard after a family who
owned the manor house (now Old Hall) for 200 years. UNQUOTE

At this point he was pointing out the difference in his copy of
domesday and he mentioned that ?Quote As you can see there is no
mention of this Uethred specifically, however Uethred/Uchtred et al. is
the Saxon for Richard. But under Domesday the area we now call Preston
Richard and even Preston Patrick was known simply as ?Prestun?.UNQUOTE
He has also said..QUOTE I have seen references that Eldred was a
corruption of Uchtred.UNQUOTE [This will probably trigger a discussion
of ?what the meaning of is is?]

Burke in his 1834 Vol.I book [suspect by some] refers to a line of
seven named Richard de Preston.

QUOTE The founder of the ancient and knightly family of PRESTON, whose
descent in the male line alone can be traced for upwards of six hundred
years, was RICHARD DE PRESTON, who was seated at Preston Richard, in
Westmorland, temp. HENRY II (FDP Note: 1154-1189).; from him came six
in descent named SIR RICHARD DE PRESTON" UNQUOTE Source: ?A
Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and
Ireland Enjoying Territorial Possessions or High Official Rank; but
Uninvested with Heritable Honours.? by John Burke, Esq. vol. I, 1834.

When one works with the chronology of the Preston line, suggested by my
tables of lifetime [suspected by some] and interleafed with actual
records and the suggestion that Uchtred is Saxon for Richard, one
arrives at the conclusion that Burke misinterpreted the first Richard,
and as has been demonstrated by the records, <"Uchtred alias Richard"
or vice versa? > appears to fit.

I have no Latin or Greek so original records wouldn?t be useful to me.
In fact, I am remote from any adequate library and confined to this
magic little box. Everything I have discovered came from others, whom I
take great pains to properly credit their work, and much from this fine
forum. I possess undying confidence in the good work of others and that
they are doing as well as they can and expressing themselves as well as
they can. I?m not interested in the petty arguments

In regard to your

<<In general, people just didn't have completely different names, and
such constructs have been used by less-that-scrupulous genealogists to
link a dead-end line onto an
earlier authentic tree.>>

(1) I agree to both points. (2) I am not clever enough to be a
<less-that (sic)-scrupulous genealogists> and the word genealogist
doesn?t apply to me; I am just an amateur family history nut, playing
with the big kids, trying to understand what I find. I won?t be selling
any books. I like to have a little fun in the process. <grin>

Todd, I have nothing but respect for your participation as ?traffic
cop? in this forum and for your extensive contributions to this
repository of knowledge. I have read with interest your pointed and
knowledgeable contributions found in the archives. You ask the
difficult questions. But, unfortunately, not everything can resolved
with ?documentation.?

Respectfully.

Dix Preston
C***@aol.com
2005-11-24 14:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd,

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thank you for presenting a concise summary of the two theories as to the
descent of William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal.

The charters of St. Bee's show that Chetel [Ketel] was the lord of
Workington as in charter #212 he gives the church of Workington with 2 carucates of
land and a mill [ he also gives two other churches] to St. Mary's, York. This
charter is also consented to by his wife Christina and his eldest son William
both of whom witness the charter. This charter is also witnessed by Ivo fitz
Forne dating it to ca. 1115-1120 as Ivo became lord of his father's lands in
1130. At the time of this charter Chetel must have been quite old as his
younger son Orm witnessed a charter of Roger de Poictevin in 1094 (Farrer, Pipe
Rolls of Lancashire, pp. 289-290) making him born at least by 1080. This
would make Ketel born ca. 1055-1060 at the latest. If Ketel had a sister
[Godith] she would have been born before 1075-1080 making it highly unlikely in
this era that she would have been the mother of William de Lancaster who was
living ca.1120-1170.

There is also proof that Ketel owned large amounts of land in Kendal (Cal.
of Charter Rolls, ii, 442). Charter 19 in the Appendix of St. Bee's Register
(Prescott, 1897, pp. 539-540) clearly shows that William de Lancaster exchanged
the land of Workington and Lamplough with Gospatric son of Orm for the land
Gospatric held in Medilton.

Gospatric son of Orm was active between 1145 and 1179 making him
approximately the same age as William de Lancaster. This would be more plausible if they
were of the same generation. The land of both Kendal and Workington would
have come from Ketel to William de Lancaster and to make this possible Gilbert
de Lancaster must have been the next heir after the death of William the
eldest son of Ketel.

As I have not seen the original charter from St. Leonard's at York I cannot
comment as to whether there are margin notes or corrections. This appears to
be a case where the scribe of the charter knew that William de Lancaster was
the 'nepos' of Ketel and mistranslated the relationship between the two men,
as nepos can mean either nephew or grandson. He apparently took William as
the nephew of Ketel making Ketel the 'avunculos' in the charter instead of the
grandson which would have made Ketel the 'avus'. This would explain the
charter and make all the documentation agree in this matter. This seems the most
logical reasoning behind the wording.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-24 21:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@aol.com
Dear Todd,
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thank you for presenting a concise summary of the two theories as to the
descent of William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendal.
Ah, . . . the horse's mouth. :} (Not a very flattering way to refer to
a person, I guess, but there are worse parts of a horse one could be
compared to.) It is good to have someone jump in who has actually
studied these families - I certainly haven't. (Good catch on
Gospatric's maternity, by the way.)
Post by C***@aol.com
The charters of St. Bee's show that Chetel [Ketel] was the lord of
Workington as in charter #212 he gives the church of Workington with 2 carucates of
land and a mill [ he also gives two other churches] to St. Mary's, York. This
charter is also consented to by his wife Christina and his eldest son William
both of whom witness the charter. This charter is also witnessed by Ivo fitz
Forne dating it to ca. 1115-1120 as Ivo became lord of his father's lands in
1130. At the time of this charter Chetel must have been quite old as his
younger son Orm witnessed a charter of Roger de Poictevin in 1094 (Farrer, Pipe
Rolls of Lancashire, pp. 289-290) making him born at least by 1080. This
would make Ketel born ca. 1055-1060 at the latest. If Ketel had a sister
[Godith] she would have been born before 1075-1080 making it highly unlikely in
this era that she would have been the mother of William de Lancaster who was
living ca.1120-1170.
I am having problems getting a grip on the chronology. You place Ketel
b. ca. 1055-60, at the latest, yet his grandfather Ivo left a widow, in
or shortly after 1093, who then remarried and had children by the new
husband. This would give Ketel a step-uncle 40 years younger than he
was, and Beatrice a step-brother 55 years younger than she. Certainly
not impossible, as an Ivo in his dotage could have married a young Lucy,
but it does seem odd.

(By the way, given that Ribald makes a donation in 1120, and Ketel about
the same time, I think Ribald has to be the second husband of Beatrice
and Elred the first, which would correct the order in your chart in
_Foundations_.)
Post by C***@aol.com
As I have not seen the original charter from St. Leonard's at York I cannot
comment as to whether there are margin notes or corrections. This appears to
be a case where the scribe of the charter knew that William de Lancaster was
the 'nepos' of Ketel and mistranslated the relationship between the two men,
as nepos can mean either nephew or grandson. He apparently took William as
the nephew of Ketel making Ketel the 'avunculos' in the charter instead of the
grandson which would have made Ketel the 'avus'. This would explain the
charter and make all the documentation agree in this matter. This seems the most
logical reasoning behind the wording.
Certainly a possibility.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-24 19:53:08 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/23/05 9:21:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@interfold.com writes:

<< C&WA&AS 62 (1962)
to show William de Lancaster as nephew of Ketel son of Eldred, making
Godith, wife of Gilbert, Ketel's sister. The latter appears to be the
more accurate, as in a contemporary charter he refers to Ketel as his
avunculus = (properly maternal although sometimes used in a generic
sense) uncle. >>

So he was really nephew through his wife and not by blood himself ?
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-24 20:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 11/23/05 9:21:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< C&WA&AS 62 (1962)
to show William de Lancaster as nephew of Ketel son of Eldred, making
Godith, wife of Gilbert, Ketel's sister. The latter appears to be the
more accurate, as in a contemporary charter he refers to Ketel as his
avunculus = (properly maternal although sometimes used in a generic
sense) uncle. >>
So he was really nephew through his wife and not by blood himself ?
This document, if appropriately using "avunculus" would make William
maternal nephew od Ketel - Ketel would be his mother's brother.
However, see MichaelAnne's post, in which she suggests that the cited
document is erroneous.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-24 21:48:57 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/24/05 6:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< The charters of St. Bee's show that Chetel [Ketel] was the lord of
Workington as in charter #212 he gives the church of Workington with 2
carucates of land and a mill [ he also gives two other churches] to St. Mary's,
York. This
charter is also consented to by his wife Christina >>

This name Christina makes me think of a Scandinavian origin. Am I off base
here? I've only ever seen the name in that context.
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-24 23:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 11/24/05 6:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
<< The charters of St. Bee's show that Chetel [Ketel] was the lord of
Workington as in charter #212 he gives the church of Workington with 2
carucates of land and a mill [ he also gives two other churches] to St. Mary's,
York. This
charter is also consented to by his wife Christina >>
This name Christina makes me think of a Scandinavian origin. Am I off base
here? I've only ever seen the name in that context.
It appears in Iberia at this time, (daughter of Vermudo II, and her
granddaughter, mother-in-law and daughter of El Cid, a few others) and
of course there is the well-known daughter of Edward the Exile.

taf
m***@btinternet.com
2005-11-25 07:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by W***@aol.com
This charter is also consented to by his wife Christina >>
This name Christina makes me think of a Scandinavian origin. Am I off base
here? I've only ever seen the name in that context.
It appears in Iberia at this time, (daughter of Vermudo II, and her
granddaughter, mother-in-law and daughter of El Cid, a few others) and
of course there is the well-known daughter of Edward the Exile.
or Christina, daughter of Goronwy ap Owain ap Edwin of Rhos (d 1124)
J***@aol.com
2005-11-25 00:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd, Will and others,
If You factor in the Christaina /
Christian that Cristina is a variant of You have a good many for centuries.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
C***@aol.com
2005-11-25 02:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd,

Thanks for the compliment about the article. You are correct that Ethelred
must have been the first husband of Beatrix Taillebois as Ribald of Middleham
was married to Beatrix before 1093 when Ivo Taillebois died [Monasticon
Anglicanum, 3:553] and in 1121 Ribald made a grant to St. Mary's, York which
indicates that Beatrix was already dead. It is difficult to fix the exact date
of the marriage between Ribald and Beatrix as they had four sons together and
Ralph Taillebois [ the eldest son and heir] succeeded his father in 1130 and
was still living in 1167/8.

There seems to be a problem with the age of Beatrix which needs further
study. Ketel was definitely the father of William and Orm. Orm was at least 14
in 1094. William was at least 15 at that time. If Ketel fathered William at
age 15 then Ketel would have ben born in 1064. Beatrix must have been at least
13 or 14 at the birth of Ketel making her born 1050/1. It seems unlikely
that Ralph Taillebois was born before 1085 and that would make Beatrix 35 at his
birth, If she gave birth successively to the next 3 sons they would have
been born before she was 40 which is the most likely scenario. This chronology
is very tight but it is the only possible way that this can work based on the
information available.

Any thoughts on this? I think this needs to be reworked.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-25 03:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@aol.com
There seems to be a problem with the age of Beatrix which needs further
study. Ketel was definitely the father of William and Orm. Orm was at least 14
in 1094. William was at least 15 at that time. If Ketel fathered William at
age 15 then Ketel would have ben born in 1064. Beatrix must have been at least
13 or 14 at the birth of Ketel making her born 1050/1. It seems unlikely
that Ralph Taillebois was born before 1085 and that would make Beatrix 35 at his
birth, If she gave birth successively to the next 3 sons they would have
been born before she was 40 which is the most likely scenario. This chronology
is very tight but it is the only possible way that this can work based on the
information available.
Any thoughts on this? I think this needs to be reworked.
I agree, but while I have bumped across these families in passing, and
even (apparently) descend from just about everyone involved, I have
never studied any of it in detail prior to this thread. Thus I don't
know what parts of the whole construct are known from documentary
evidence, and what is reconstructed from land inheritance and the like
(e.g. do we _know_ that Ketil was son of Beatrice or is this deduced? -
I just don't know these things). There are certainly enough marriages
involving well-documented individuals to produce a chronological
framework - I get the impression nobody has looked all that closely, or
I would expect some comment on the weird chronology.

taf
C***@aol.com
2005-11-25 15:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Dear Doug,

Medieval Latin is certainly not an exact science. The word 'avunculos' is
two words together 'avus' and 'unculos'. Classical Latin had very definite
words to differentiate the meaning between maternal uncle 'unculos' and paternal
uncle 'patruus'. The medieval scribes tried to create words to define
relationships and to do this they pushed words together. Some words became used
continually to mean something and the term 'avunculos' was generally meant as
maternal uncle. The classical term 'patruus' which is used in other charters
generally meant father's brother. I have also sent the term 'patrunculos'
used to specify this relationship.

The question about the meaning of 'avunculos' in the charter of St.
Leonard's, York is easily explained by the fact that 'nepos' had so many meanings and
it was simply a scribal misinterpretation of the term that lead to the
mistake in the charter. Dr. Jackman goes into great detail about the term 'nepos'
in the article you cited and this was the real crux of the discussion.

Sincerely,
MichaelAnne
C***@aol.com
2005-11-25 16:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd,

It is possible to construct a documented timeframe for both the line of
Ethelred and also of Ivo Taillebois but there is no definite proof that I have
ever seen making Beatrix Taillebois the mother of Ketel. She was definitely the
wife of Ribald of Middleham as a charter cited in Dugdale's Monasticon Ivo
Taillebois refers to Ribald as his son-in-law.

The theory that Beatrix was the mother of Ketel seems to be created to
explain the descent of the lands of Kendal. What is known about Kendal is that it
belonged to Ivo Taillebois and that later Henry I gave large amounts of land
in Kendal to Ketel.

At this period land many times did not descend in families and it is
entirely possible that the land in Kendal could have been a gift from Henry I to
ensure loyalty from Ketel to both himself and Ketel's overlord Rannulf le
Meschin. Though Normans were the majority landholders in most of England this does
not hold true for Northumberland and Cumberland in the eleventh and early
twelfth centuries. The land in these two counties was in dispute with Scotland
throughout the reign of Henry I and into the reign of Stephen which made it
advantageous to the monarch to give land to loyal native families [e.g.
Waldeve, lord of Allerton].

As the chronology is so unusual in this case it seems appropriate to
eliminate Beatrix Taillebois as the mother of Ketel until other documentation can be
found to substantiate the relationship.

Best regards,
MichaelAnne
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-25 18:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@aol.com
As the chronology is so unusual in this case it seems appropriate to
eliminate Beatrix Taillebois as the mother of Ketel until other documentation can be
found to substantiate the relationship.
Perhaps this is getting a little ahead of the game, but as I think about
the consequence, would this bear on Beatrice's maternity - IIRC, it was
concluded that she could not be daughter of Lucy because Lucy could not
have been grandmother of Ketel. If Beatrice was not mother of Ketel,
could she then have been Lucy's daughter?

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-25 20:05:27 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/24/05 6:39:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< Thanks for the compliment about the article. You are correct that
Ethelred must have been the first husband of Beatrix Taillebois as Ribald of
Middleham was married to Beatrix before 1093 when Ivo Taillebois died [Monasticon
Anglicanum, 3:553] and in 1121 Ribald made a grant to St. Mary's, York
which indicates that Beatrix was already dead. It is difficult to fix the
exact date of the marriage between Ribald and Beatrix as they had four sons
together and Ralph Taillebois [ the eldest son and heir] succeeded his father
in 1130 and was still living in 1167/8.

There seems to be a problem with the age of Beatrix which needs further
study. Ketel was definitely the father of William and Orm. Orm was at least 14
in 1094. William was at least 15 at that time. If Ketel
fathered William at age 15 then Ketel would have ben born in 1064. Beatrix must
have been at least 13 or 14 >>

I'm not understanding this. Are there two Beatrix's here?
You say Ethelred was first husband of Beatrix and then Ribald was the next
husband. But then you are also talking about Beatrix as wife to Ketel. Can you
clarify this?
Thanks
Will Johnson
J***@aol.com
2005-11-25 22:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Dear Todd, Michael Anne, Will and Others,
Is Ethelred
the same as Ethelred / Heth mac Malcolm ? If He is the presumed eldest son of
Malcolm III mac Duncan by his 2nd wife Margaret Aetheling then He was probably
born no earlier than 1068 if CP V :736; CP VII: pp 641-42 are correct as to
their date of marriage at Dunfermline in 1068/ 69. We know also that He was
dead or divorced before 1093 and it is thought that He was married to Beatrix
Taillebois, by whom He had Ketel of Workington. This same Ethelred however is
thought to have been the husband of the daughter of Lulach mac Gillecomghall,
King of Scots who died in battle in 1058 and to have had by her Dubh the
ancestor of the Earls of Fife. So We have a veritable legion of questions but no
concrete answers.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
butlergrt
2005-11-25 23:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Dear James C. and All,
Some of my same thoughts too. I have seen that there are two Gospatricks.
Maldred Earl of Bernicia and Earl of Northumbria who mar.
Aeldgyth(Edith) dau. of Uchtred, 5th Lord Bamburgh had 1st son Gospatrick,
Earl of Northumberland, 1st Earl of Dunbar: dau. Gunnilda mar. Orm, Lord
of Atterdale, whose 1st son was Gospatrick who married Egeline d'Engaine
in case there might be some confusion.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
[.]nz
2005-11-27 02:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Dear James C. and All,
Some of my same thoughts too. I have seen that there are two Gospatricks.
Maldred Earl of Bernicia and Earl of Northumbria who mar.
Aeldgyth(Edith) dau. of Uchtred, 5th Lord Bamburgh had 1st son Gospatrick,
Earl of Northumberland, 1st Earl of Dunbar: dau. Gunnilda mar. Orm, Lord
of Atterdale, whose 1st son was Gospatrick who married Egeline d'Engaine
in case there might be some confusion.
Thats what I tried to draw (but didn't come out that well)

This Maldred Earl of Bernicia ( above) = brother to Duncan King of
Scots 1034-40. Son of Crinan & Bethoc, Son of Duncan d 965.
source : The Acient House of Curwen

Brendan wilson

To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 03:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by [.]nz
Post by butlergrt
Dear James C. and All,
Some of my same thoughts too. I have seen that there are two Gospatricks.
Maldred Earl of Bernicia and Earl of Northumbria who mar.
Aeldgyth(Edith) dau. of Uchtred, 5th Lord Bamburgh had 1st son Gospatrick,
Earl of Northumberland, 1st Earl of Dunbar: dau. Gunnilda mar. Orm, Lord
of Atterdale, whose 1st son was Gospatrick who married Egeline d'Engaine
in case there might be some confusion.
Thats what I tried to draw (but didn't come out that well)
Note that MichaelAnne's _Foundations_ artice demonstrates that the
children of Orm were not by Gunnilda, but by a second wife, Ibrea.

taf
Le Bateman
2005-11-27 04:16:21 UTC
Permalink
According to Fletcher's Bloodfeud page 76 Uhtred and Sige had two sons
Eadwulf and Gospatric of the Writ. Ealdgyth was his daughter by Ælfgifu she
married Maldred they too had a son named Gospatric. pg. 76.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <***@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid son and heir..Further..
Post by [.]nz
Post by butlergrt
Dear James C. and All,
Some of my same thoughts too. I have seen that there are two Gospatricks.
Maldred Earl of Bernicia and Earl of Northumbria who mar.
Aeldgyth(Edith) dau. of Uchtred, 5th Lord Bamburgh had 1st son Gospatrick,
Earl of Northumberland, 1st Earl of Dunbar: dau. Gunnilda mar. Orm, Lord
of Atterdale, whose 1st son was Gospatrick who married Egeline d'Engaine
in case there might be some confusion.
Thats what I tried to draw (but didn't come out that well)
Note that MichaelAnne's _Foundations_ artice demonstrates that the
children of Orm were not by Gunnilda, but by a second wife, Ibrea.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-27 08:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

< Note that MichaelAnne's _Foundations_ artice demonstrates that the
< children of Orm were not by Gunnilda, but by a second wife, Ibrea.
<
< taf

Actually MichaelAnne Guido's recent Foundations article proves that Orm
Fitz Ketel (living 1094) did NOT marry Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife
of Ranulph Engaine. The evidence she presents shows conclusively that
the mother of Orm's son, Gospatric, was Orm's wife, Gravelda (or
Gurwelda, Gimilda), daughter of Gospatric I, Earl of Dunbar.

And, the name is Gravelda (or Gurwelda, Gimilda), by the way, not
Gunnilda as you have it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 18:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
< Note that MichaelAnne's _Foundations_ artice demonstrates that the
< children of Orm were not by Gunnilda, but by a second wife, Ibrea.
<
< taf
Actually MichaelAnne Guido's recent Foundations article proves that Orm
Fitz Ketel (living 1094) did NOT marry Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife
of Ranulph Engaine. The evidence she presents shows conclusively that
the mother of Orm's son, Gospatric, was Orm's wife, Gravelda (or
Gurwelda, Gimilda), daughter of Gospatric I, Earl of Dunbar.
Did you actually read the article? I quote from p. 398:

"Regardless of speculation of the identity of Ebrea, it is certain that
she, and not Gunnilda daughter of Gospatric, Earl of Northumberland, was
the mother of Gospatric son and heir of Orm son of Ketel."

This conclusion is based, in part on two charters. For example, one of
which is of Gospatric, and includes among the witnesses "Egeliva uxore
mea, Ebrea matre mea". If you think this proves that he was son of
'Gravelda', then you have some explaining to do.
Post by Douglas Richardson
And, the name is Gravelda (or Gurwelda, Gimilda), by the way, not
Gunnilda as you have it.
. . . and as the person I was responding to had it, and as MichaelAnne
had it . . . . Given that the same name appears also to be read
elsewhere as Gravelda, Gurwelda, Gimilda and Gornella, and in light of
the known difficulty in distinguishing the meaning of strings of
consecutive minims, it seems rash to simply pick one from a published
edition and say "this is the right one", and tell those using other
possible readings that they got it wrong (or are you looking at an
original manuscript)?.

taf
Chris Phillips
2005-11-27 20:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Actually MichaelAnne Guido's recent Foundations article proves that Orm
Fitz Ketel (living 1094) did NOT marry Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife
of Ranulph Engaine. The evidence she presents shows conclusively that
the mother of Orm's son, Gospatric, was Orm's wife, Gravelda (or
Gurwelda, Gimilda), daughter of Gospatric I, Earl of Dunbar.
MichaelAnne Guido, in her article, showed that the mother of Gospatric son
of Orm was named (in two Latin charters) as Ebrea. She suggested that Ebrea
may have been the daughter of Robert de Trevers, who was the wife of Ranulf
Engaine, but described this as "speculation", which was "not conclusively
proven" by the documents.

Like Todd Farmerie, I should be interested to know if you have reason to
doubt her conclusions, but the evidence that Gospatric's mother was named
Ebrea seems to be clearer than we can usually hope for in this period.

Chris Phillips
m***@btinternet.com
2005-11-27 23:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Phillips
MichaelAnne Guido, in her article, showed that the mother of Gospatric son
of Orm was named (in two Latin charters) as Ebrea. She suggested that Ebrea
may have been the daughter of Robert de Trevers, who was the wife of Ranulf
Engaine, but described this as "speculation", which was "not conclusively
proven" by the documents.
Like Todd Farmerie, I should be interested to know if you have reason to
doubt her conclusions, but the evidence that Gospatric's mother was named
Ebrea seems to be clearer than we can usually hope for in this period.
My thanks to taf and Chris for bringing MichaelAnne's work to the
attention of the wider group [I must post off my subscription forms!] -
and to MichaelAnne for researching and publishing. There goes the
posited royal ancestry of the early Harringtons and Hudlestons, but
truth is above price.

Michael
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-28 03:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Ms. Guido's interesting article on Gospatric Fitz Orm now under
discussion appeared in Foundations (2005) 1(6): 395-403. The article
is entitled "The Ancestry of Gospatric, Lord of Workington."

The traditional identification of Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother as
Gravelda (or Gurwelda, Gimilda), daughter of Gospatric I, Earl of
Dunbar, is based on a document which is found in two different printed
cartularies. I've examined this document for its accuracy and, as best
I can tell, it is reliable. The document is essentially the same in
both cartularies, with minor differences. The document specifically
states that Gravelda of Dunbar was given four properties in marriage by
her brother, Waltheof son of Earl Gospatric, namely Seaton (in
Camerton), Camerton, Flemingby, and Greysouthen (in Brigham), all in
Cumberland. Surviving contemporary evidences shows that these four
properties were all subsequently held by Gospatric Fitz Orm (see, for
example, Grainger and Collingwood, The Register and Records of Holm
Cultram, 1929, pp. 18-19, 49). The passage of these properties to
Gospatric Fitz Orm is strong confirmatory evidence of the accuracy of
the document. Moreover, the onomastic evidence of Gospatric Fitz Orm's
given name is also important, as Gospatric Fitz Orm would have been
named for his mother's father, Earl Gospatric. As best I can tell, Ms.
Guido rejected the document out of hand and made no attempt to
determine if the document was reliable as to its numerous statements,
either in respect to Gospatric Fitz Orm' own parents, or as to numerous
other members of the Dunbar family named in the document, or as to the
passage of the numerous tracts of land which are mentioned in the text.
Morever, the onomastic evidence has been ignored.

As for Ms. Guido's alternative theory that Gospatric Fitz Orm was the
son of Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife of Ranulph Engaine, she has
quoted two charters issued by Gospatric Fitz Orm himself. In the first
charter, the witnesses include the following two people:

"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre ejus." [Reference: James
Wilson, Register of the Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915):
60-61].

Ms. Guido translated this to read "his wife Elgiva and his mother
Ebrea." (Ms. Guido's words). However, as we have learned from a
recent discussion regarding a lawsuit involving the Lacy and Galloway
families, if Gospatric's mother had really been Ebrea, the list of
witnesses should have read as following:

"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre suus."

Instead we find the word "ejus" (not "suus") employed in the original,
which means that Ebrea was Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's. The word
"ejus" (her) in the original text refers back to Elgiva, not Gospatric.
If Ebrea was Gospatric's mother, the word "suus" (his) would have been
used to refer back to Gospatric, he being the author of the charter in
question.

In the second charter, we find that Gospatric Fitz Orm refers to Ebrea
as "matre mea" (my mother) [Reference: James Wilson, Register of the
Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 63-64]. However, we know
from other instances in medieval records that a man may refer to either
his mother, step-mother, or mother-in-law as "my mother." So the term
"my mother" in medieval records is vague in and of its own nature.
Just this past week, for example, I cited several instances of a
mother-in-law being called "mother" in medieval records. In this case,
Joan de Arundel was repeatedly called "king's mother" to King Henry IV
of England, where in truth she was the mother of his deceased wife,
Mary de Bohun [References: Rymer Fœdera 8 (1727): 422 ([Joan],
Countess of Hereford, styled "mother" by King Henry IV of England);
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1399-1401 (1903): 34, 60-61 (instances of
Joan styled "king's mother")].

The short end of it is this: You can only use the first of Gospatric
Fitz Orm's charters to determine if his mother was Ebrea. And, the
Latin in that charter pointedly tells us that Ebrea was his wife
Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's. Furthermore, Ms. Guido has presented
no evidence that Ebrea de Trevers, wife of Ranulph Engaine, was ever
married to Gospatric's father, Orm Fitz Ketel. Lastly, and most fatal
of all, for her theory to be correct, Ms. Guido needs to explain why
Gospatric Fitz Orm inherited Gravelda of Dunbar's maritagium, which she
has not done.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-28 05:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my earlier post, I found the information below in
Nicholson and Burns on Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife of Ranulph
Engaine, when I was doing research on the ancestry of the Harrington
family some years ago. Nicholson and Burn refer to a gift Ibrea and
Ranulph made to Carlisle Priory, which gift was confirmed by Hugh de
Morville. I assume the Hugh de Morville in question is the one who was
Constable of Scotland who died in 1162. If so, I would assume Hugh de
Morville's confirmation charter would date roughly in the period from
1135 to 1162.

If anyone has access to the Carlisle charters, I'd appreciate it if
they would post an abstract of the charter of Ibrea and Ranulph and
that of Hugh de Morville here on the newsgroup. Thanks!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net

"This Robert de Trevers had a daughter and heir Ibria Trevers married
to Ranulph Engayn lord of Isell. Which Ibria and Ranulph her husband
gave Henrickbny, otherwise Herriby, near Carlisle to the priory there,
which gift Hugh Morvil confirmed. The said Ranulph Engayn had issue
William Engayn; who had issue a daughter and heir Ada Engayn, who by
marriage transferred this barony of Burgh to the Morvils. She was
married to Simon de Morvill, son of Hugh de Morvill who in the third
year of king Stephen was one of the witnesses to the charter of the
protection then made by David king of Scots to the monks of
Tinemouth." [Reference: Joseph Nicholson and Richard Burn, Hist. &
Antiq. of Westmorland and Cumberland, 2 (1777): 216].
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Ms. Guido's interesting article on Gospatric Fitz Orm now under
discussion appeared in Foundations (2005) 1(6): 395-403. The article
is entitled "The Ancestry of Gospatric, Lord of Workington."
The traditional identification of Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother as
Gravelda (or Gurwelda, Gimilda), daughter of Gospatric I, Earl of
Dunbar, is based on a document which is found in two different printed
cartularies. I've examined this document for its accuracy and, as best
I can tell, it is reliable. The document is essentially the same in
both cartularies, with minor differences. The document specifically
states that Gravelda of Dunbar was given four properties in marriage by
her brother, Waltheof son of Earl Gospatric, namely Seaton (in
Camerton), Camerton, Flemingby, and Greysouthen (in Brigham), all in
Cumberland. Surviving contemporary evidences shows that these four
properties were all subsequently held by Gospatric Fitz Orm (see, for
example, Grainger and Collingwood, The Register and Records of Holm
Cultram, 1929, pp. 18-19, 49). The passage of these properties to
Gospatric Fitz Orm is strong confirmatory evidence of the accuracy of
the document. Moreover, the onomastic evidence of Gospatric Fitz Orm's
given name is also important, as Gospatric Fitz Orm would have been
named for his mother's father, Earl Gospatric. As best I can tell, Ms.
Guido rejected the document out of hand and made no attempt to
determine if the document was reliable as to its numerous statements,
either in respect to Gospatric Fitz Orm' own parents, or as to numerous
other members of the Dunbar family named in the document, or as to the
passage of the numerous tracts of land which are mentioned in the text.
Morever, the onomastic evidence has been ignored.
As for Ms. Guido's alternative theory that Gospatric Fitz Orm was the
son of Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife of Ranulph Engaine, she has
quoted two charters issued by Gospatric Fitz Orm himself. In the first
"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre ejus." [Reference: James
60-61].
Ms. Guido translated this to read "his wife Elgiva and his mother
Ebrea." (Ms. Guido's words). However, as we have learned from a
recent discussion regarding a lawsuit involving the Lacy and Galloway
families, if Gospatric's mother had really been Ebrea, the list of
"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre suus."
Instead we find the word "ejus" (not "suus") employed in the original,
which means that Ebrea was Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's. The word
"ejus" (her) in the original text refers back to Elgiva, not Gospatric.
If Ebrea was Gospatric's mother, the word "suus" (his) would have been
used to refer back to Gospatric, he being the author of the charter in
question.
In the second charter, we find that Gospatric Fitz Orm refers to Ebrea
as "matre mea" (my mother) [Reference: James Wilson, Register of the
Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 63-64]. However, we know
from other instances in medieval records that a man may refer to either
his mother, step-mother, or mother-in-law as "my mother." So the term
"my mother" in medieval records is vague in and of its own nature.
Just this past week, for example, I cited several instances of a
mother-in-law being called "mother" in medieval records. In this case,
Joan de Arundel was repeatedly called "king's mother" to King Henry IV
of England, where in truth she was the mother of his deceased wife,
Mary de Bohun [References: Rymer Fœdera 8 (1727): 422 ([Joan],
Countess of Hereford, styled "mother" by King Henry IV of England);
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1399-1401 (1903): 34, 60-61 (instances of
Joan styled "king's mother")].
The short end of it is this: You can only use the first of Gospatric
Fitz Orm's charters to determine if his mother was Ebrea. And, the
Latin in that charter pointedly tells us that Ebrea was his wife
Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's. Furthermore, Ms. Guido has presented
no evidence that Ebrea de Trevers, wife of Ranulph Engaine, was ever
married to Gospatric's father, Orm Fitz Ketel. Lastly, and most fatal
of all, for her theory to be correct, Ms. Guido needs to explain why
Gospatric Fitz Orm inherited Gravelda of Dunbar's maritagium, which she
has not done.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-28 07:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

The wonderful British History Online website has an online copy of the
Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300: volume 2, edited by Diana E.
Greenway, published in 1971. On page 21-23 of this work, it states
that "the Augustinian priory of Carlisle seems to have been founded in
c. 1122, as the result of a royal visit, but it is uncertain whether an
earlier religious house had been in existence since c. 1102."

If the 1122 date is correct, then the gift of Ranulph Engaine and his
wife, Ibrea de Trevers, to Carlisle Priory would necessarily date
sometime after 1122. This date would certainly be consistent with
their gift being confirmed by Hugh de Morville sometime in the period,
1135-1162.

If correct, I would think it would be virtually impossible
chronologically for Ibrea de Trevers to be the mother of Gospatric Fitz
Orm, who I estimate was born say 1110. This chronology also rules out
the possibility that Ibrea de Trevers was married first to Orm Fitz
Ketel, and then to Ranulph Engaine. For if Ibrea de Trevers married
first Orm Fitz Ketel and was the mother of Gospatric Fitz Orm, then
Gospatric Fitz Orm would have been Ibrea's heir, which he was not.
Ibrea de Trevers' known heir was her son, William Engaine. Further
research is needed I think, but already the Guido arrangement of the
Engaine and Fitz Orm families seems to be badly out of wack.

There is additional history of the Carlisle Priory found on the
following weblink:

http://www.stevebulman.f9.co.uk/cumbria/diocese.html

The information below is taken from that weblink. It reveals that King
Henry II confirmed the gift of the mill and village of Henrickby, by
Ranulph Engaine, as well as the gift of four salt works, near Burgh, a
moiety of land in Scadbothes, and a house in Carlisle, given by Ranulph
and Ibrea Engaine's son and heir, William Engaine. Mention is also
made of a gift of the church and hospital of Caldbeck, with lands near
Flemingby, given by Gospatric Fitz Orm. The lands near Flemingby were
presumably part of the maritagium of Gospatric's mother, Gravelda of
Dunbar. Gifts by Gospatric Fitz Orm's uncle, Waltheof Fitz Gospatric
(died 1138), and by Waltheof's son, Alan, are also mentioned.

"This monastery, which shortly afterwards became the cathedral of
Carlisle, was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, and, amongst the many
gifts which it received from Henry I were the churches of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newburn, Whittingham, Rothbury, and Warkworth, in
Northumberland, all of which are now in the patronage of the bishop of
Carlisle. The same royal donor also gave it a fishery in the Eden, and
a corn mill. Henry II confirmed to the prior and canons the following
grants, viz., a carucate of land, &c. in Hethetwisle, given by the king
of Scotland; the churches of Espatrick and Great Crosseby, with two
carucates of land there, and a mansion house, near St. Cuthbert's, in
Carlisle, given by Waldieve, son of Gospatrick; the churches of Little
Crosseby and Ireby, with a sixth part of the town of Ireby, given by
Alan, son of Waldieve; Great Crosseby with its appurtenances, given by
Waldieve, son of Alan; lands in Arthunet and Lorton, by Ranulph de
Lindesey; the church and hospital of Caldbeck, with lands near
Flemingby, given by Gospatrick, son of Orme; the mill and village of
Henrickby, by Ranulph Engaine; four salt works, near Burgh, a moiety of
land in Scadbothes, and a house in Carlisle, given by William Engaine;
two bovates of land in Mebrune, by Hugh de Morvill; half a carucate of
land at Crekstot, and four acres at Tympaurin, by John Morvil and his
heirs; Tithvenni, that is the land which was in debate between Boolton
and Colleby, given by Uchtred and Adam, his heir; a carucate of land
and two houses at Stainton, by Ranulph, son of Walter; lands in
Tympaurin, by Theobold de Dacre and Gilbert and Adam Aclugh; lands in
Carlisle, by Gilbert Aclugh; lands in Crakenthorpe, by Halth le
Malchael; one third of Lowther Church, by Humphrey Malchael; Hutton
Church, with a carucate of land there, by Robert de Vaulx; three acres
of land without the walls of Carlisle, and a house in the city, by
William, dean of Carlisle; and two bovates of land in Tallentyre, given
by Adam, son of Uchtred. About the year 1133, when Carlisle was erected
into a Bishop's See, Henry I, the principal royal benefactor of
Carlisle Priory, prevailed upon Athelwald, its first prior, to consent
to be consecrated bishop, and gave him that jurisdiction which has ever
since been held by the succeeding bishops of Carlisle, to the exclusion
of those of Durham. Walter, another of the king's chaplains, was
constituted the next prior of Carlisle." END OF QUOTE.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-28 08:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
If correct, I would think it would be virtually impossible
chronologically for Ibrea de Trevers to be the mother of Gospatric Fitz
Orm, who I estimate was born say 1110.
Perhaps, but would it prevent Gospatric's mother from being some other
woman named Ibrea?

taf
Nathaniel Taylor
2005-11-28 06:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Ms. Guido's interesting article on Gospatric Fitz Orm now under
discussion appeared in Foundations (2005) 1(6): 395-403. The article
is entitled "The Ancestry of Gospatric, Lord of Workington."
As for Ms. Guido's alternative theory that Gospatric Fitz Orm was the
son of Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife of Ranulph Engaine, she has
quoted two charters issued by Gospatric Fitz Orm himself. In the first
"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre ejus." [Reference: James
60-61].
Ms. Guido translated this to read "his wife Elgiva and his mother
Ebrea." (Ms. Guido's words). However, as we have learned from a
recent discussion regarding a lawsuit involving the Lacy and Galloway
families, if Gospatric's mother had really been Ebrea, the list of
"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre suus."
Instead we find the word "ejus" (not "suus") employed in the original,
which means that Ebrea was Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's. The word
"ejus" (her) in the original text refers back to Elgiva, not Gospatric.
If Ebrea was Gospatric's mother, the word "suus" (his) would have been
used to refer back to Gospatric, he being the author of the charter in
question.
<...>
Post by Douglas Richardson
... the Latin in that charter pointedly tells us that Ebrea was his wife
Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's.
The Latin argument here is wrong. The difference between 'eius' and
'suus' is NOT 'his' and 'her'. 'Suus, suum, sua' is an adjective of
ownership which always connects the thing modified to the *subject* of
the sentence or phrase, and is often reserved for special emphasis. The
more common 'ejus' is the other way to signify ownership or reference,
but it is a pronoun, the genitive of 'is, ea, id'; in the singular this
genitive pronoun is the same no matter what the gender of the owner to
which it refers--so it literally means 'of him', 'of her', or 'of it'.
The classic ambiguity about 'eius' is that it is not always obvious to
whom the word is referring.

So the choice of 'eius' over 'suus' does NOT mean that the person MUST
be Elgiva's mother. In medieval witness lists, 'suus' exclusively
refers back to the legal actor, while eius could vary with context: but
'suus' was not always used where it could have been (in this charter,
with Gospatric as the actor, 'sua' would have been the ONLY way to avoid
confusion, and it was not used here). So this first charter does not
'pointedly' say anything.

The second charter uses 'matre mea', a first-person useage which
obviously refers back to the grantor (Gospatric). Whether the meaning
of 'mater' can be stretched in first-person usage to mean mother-in-law
is another matter.

Douglas, do you have examples where 'mater' is used by a speaker to
describe his or her OWN mother-in-law, in a charter (as opposed to some
more distant third-person usage)?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/immigrantsa.htm
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-28 08:51:04 UTC
Permalink
It is highly deceptive to say that an article proves something different
than (let alone polar opposite) what the author concludes without
explaining (or even mentioning that you are drawing the opposite
conclusion to that of the author). That being said, now I know what you
Post by Douglas Richardson
Actually MichaelAnne Guido's recent Foundations article proves that Orm
Fitz Ketel (living 1094) did NOT marry Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife
of Ranulph Engaine.
Nothing in this explanitory post provides any basis for this conclusion.
You could certainly argue that she fails to prove that this exact
marriage took place, by MichaelAnne grants that herself, in the article.


The evidence she presents shows conclusively that
Post by Douglas Richardson
the mother of Orm's son, Gospatric, was Orm's wife, Gravelda (or
Gurwelda, Gimilda), daughter of Gospatric I, Earl of Dunbar.
That you do address, but conclusively? hardly!
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
Ms. Guido's interesting article on Gospatric Fitz Orm now under
discussion appeared in Foundations (2005) 1(6): 395-403. The article
is entitled "The Ancestry of Gospatric, Lord of Workington."
The traditional identification of Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother as
Gravelda (or Gurwelda, Gimilda), daughter of Gospatric I, Earl of
Dunbar, is based on a document which is found in two different printed
cartularies. I've examined this document for its accuracy and, as best
I can tell, it is reliable. The document is essentially the same in
both cartularies, with minor differences. The document specifically
states that Gravelda of Dunbar was given four properties in marriage by
her brother, Waltheof son of Earl Gospatric, namely Seaton (in
Camerton), Camerton, Flemingby, and Greysouthen (in Brigham), all in
Cumberland. Surviving contemporary evidences shows that these four
properties were all subsequently held by Gospatric Fitz Orm (see, for
example, Grainger and Collingwood, The Register and Records of Holm
Cultram, 1929, pp. 18-19, 49). The passage of these properties to
Gospatric Fitz Orm is strong confirmatory evidence of the accuracy of
the document.
OK, as far as it goes.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Moreover, the onomastic evidence of Gospatric Fitz Orm's
given name is also important, as Gospatric Fitz Orm would have been
named for his mother's father, Earl Gospatric.
Would he? Viewed in a vacuum, would it surprise you, in a northcountry
family that used the names Ketel and Orm to find the name Gospatric
being used as well? This is not like the name Alfonso suddenly
appearing in England as one of the sons of Edward I. Gospatric was a
name one might expect in such a family, independent of who the maternal
grandfather was.

As best I can tell, Ms.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Guido rejected the document out of hand and made no attempt to
determine if the document was reliable as to its numerous statements,
either in respect to Gospatric Fitz Orm' own parents, or as to numerous
other members of the Dunbar family named in the document, or as to the
passage of the numerous tracts of land which are mentioned in the text.
What statements - as you relate it, it does not explicitly name
"Gravilda" as Gospatric's mother, right? It does indicate that she
brought to Orm land later held by Gospatric, but we have already seen
the mess made by similar inheritance assumptions when it comes to Ivo
Taillebois and Ketel filius Eldred.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Morever, the onomastic evidence has been ignored.
As well it should have been, even if it was of such value as to
seemingly be diagnostic, which it isn't. An authentic direct
contemporary relational statement trumps all indirect arguments.

Here is a real-life example. Infante Ramiro of Navarre had a sister
named Estefania. From this you would reasonably conclude based on
onomastics that the two siblings were grandchildren of King Garcia
Sanchez by his wife Estefania of Foix. Likewise, Ramiro's son Garcia
ended up holding lands that were part of Estefania of Foix's marigatum.
Case closed, right? yet there is explicit documentary evidence that
Ramiro (and hence Estefania) were children of Garcia's illegitimate son,
Sancho, and not of a legitimate son by Estefania. How did this come to
pass? It doesn't matter in the least - we know it did from the primary
documents. King John never "should" have been named John. Do we have
to explain why before we accept that he was really son of Henry and
Eleanor? (ditto King Philip of France)

Arguments about what "should" have been the case based on indirect
evidence cannot stand up to the explicit documentation. Once you have a
reliable document that says X is son of Y, onomastic arguments become
superfluous, as do arguments based on how land "should" have been
inherited (sometimes lands passed from one person to another by means
other than inheritance - sale, gift, royal confiscation and regrant,
etc., and not all such transactions have survived). We should feel no
compunction to reject seemingly authentic documentation due its
disagreement with our 'rules' of how they should have behaved.
Post by Douglas Richardson
As for Ms. Guido's alternative theory that Gospatric Fitz Orm was the
son of Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers, wife of Ranulph Engaine, she has
quoted two charters issued by Gospatric Fitz Orm himself.
You are combining two theories, first that Gospatric was son of a woman
named Ibrea, and second that this Ibrea was identical to Ibrea de
Trevers. It would be better if you kept these separate, as they are not
interdependent.


In the first
Post by Douglas Richardson
"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre ejus." [Reference: James
60-61].
Ms. Guido translated this to read "his wife Elgiva and his mother
Ebrea." (Ms. Guido's words). However, as we have learned from a
recent discussion regarding a lawsuit involving the Lacy and Galloway
families, if Gospatric's mother had really been Ebrea, the list of
"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre suus."
Instead we find the word "ejus" (not "suus") employed in the original,
which means that Ebrea was Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's. The word
"ejus" (her) in the original text refers back to Elgiva, not Gospatric.
I wondered about this myself, but in the end, could draw no conclusion
as to which person was the object of the pronoun.
Post by Douglas Richardson
If Ebrea was Gospatric's mother, the word "suus" (his) would have been
used to refer back to Gospatric, he being the author of the charter in
question.
It is rather curious that only a day after arguing that there was
imprecision in medieval Latin you are now arguing that it is being used
with precision. I guess whichever suits the argument you are making at
the time, eh?
Post by Douglas Richardson
In the second charter, we find that Gospatric Fitz Orm refers to Ebrea
as "matre mea" (my mother) [Reference: James Wilson, Register of the
Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 63-64]. However, we know
from other instances in medieval records that a man may refer to either
his mother, step-mother, or mother-in-law as "my mother." So the term
"my mother" in medieval records is vague in and of its own nature.
And lo and behold, we are back to arguing in favor of imprecision.
Post by Douglas Richardson
The short end of it is this: You can only use the first of Gospatric
Fitz Orm's charters to determine if his mother was Ebrea. And, the
Latin in that charter pointedly tells us that Ebrea was his wife
Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's.
And back to precision again.

Furthermore, Ms. Guido has presented
Post by Douglas Richardson
no evidence that Ebrea de Trevers, wife of Ranulph Engaine, was ever
married to Gospatric's father, Orm Fitz Ketel.
That is a different question than whether the Ibrea who witnessed the
charters (who need not be Ibrea de Trevers) was mother of Gospatric,
isn't it?

Lastly, and most fatal
Post by Douglas Richardson
of all, for her theory to be correct, Ms. Guido needs to explain why
Gospatric Fitz Orm inherited Gravelda of Dunbar's maritagium, which she
has not done.
Did he inherit it though, or just end up with it? Again, if the
documents explicitly give a relationship (and I grant you, this is
subject to debate) then do we ignore this exxplicit testimony because it
doesn't match our modern notions of what "should" have come to pass with
regard to the land? I would hope not.

taf
Chris Phillips
2005-11-28 09:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Douglas Richardson wrote:
<<
As best I can tell, Ms.
Guido rejected the document out of hand and made no attempt to
determine if the document was reliable as to its numerous statements,
either in respect to Gospatric Fitz Orm' own parents, or as to numerous
other members of the Dunbar family named in the document, or as to the
passage of the numerous tracts of land which are mentioned in the text.
MichaelAnne's article is clear enough about this.

She didn't "reject it out of hand". Instead, she commented, "This shows that
Gunnilda was the wife of Orm son of Ketel but not that she was the mother of
Gospatric."

It might well _suggest_ that she was the mother of Gospatric, in the absence
of other evidence, but the charters provide direct evidence that Gospatric's
mother was named Ebrea. (It is obviously not tenable to argue that Ebrea is
Elgiva's mother in the first charter, when in the second she is clearly
Gospatric's mother.)

Chris Phillips
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-26 02:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@aol.com
Dear Todd, Michael Anne, Will and Others,
Is Ethelred
the same as Ethelred / Heth mac Malcolm ? If He is the presumed eldest son of
Malcolm III mac Duncan by his 2nd wife Margaret Aetheling then He was probably
born no earlier than 1068 if CP V :736; CP VII: pp 641-42 are correct as to
their date of marriage at Dunfermline in 1068/ 69. We know also that He was
dead or divorced before 1093 and it is thought that He was married to Beatrix
Taillebois, by whom He had Ketel of Workington. This same Ethelred however is
thought to have been the husband of the daughter of Lulach mac Gillecomghall,
King of Scots who died in battle in 1058 and to have had by her Dubh the
ancestor of the Earls of Fife. So We have a veritable legion of questions but no
concrete answers.
It looks to me like someone has gone and matched up various people named
Ethelred. I know of no reason why the father of Ketel should be
identified with the son of Malcolm, and several reasons why not.

taf
butlergrt
2005-11-26 12:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Good Morning Todd,James,and All,
Could Ethelred really be this Alfred de Taillebois of Lincoln, as I have
read and someone thought, Ethelred/Alfred they sound similiar must be the
same but are not??!!! But then who is Alfred as I have never seen him as
younger brother of Ivo.
You all are seeing what I(Iknow my writing style!explicative) have found
and yet these group of peopling are very key to many historical(accurate)
events. The Butlers of Ireland and who? they really descend from along
with the rest of Botelers,The True historical descent leading to Robert
the Bruce of Scotland, The Welsh and the Marcher Lords and they all ty up
again in the 1715 revolt. It is as if people tied names wherever and have
been repeated without documentation and been accepted as fact. I
appreciate the help.
Why is Ivo so important? It is alleged that Roger fitzReinfrid was his
youger brother, if so that in a way explains Gilbert FitzReinfrid, but if
it was as I think, Chris, wrote, he was "Styled" fitzReinfrid who is he
then? There is a Bruere or de Bruere that is connected that may explain it
but have had no luck in finding this ty-in. This thread I am finding, from
those of you who have done this for so long and know how to find this
information, is totally fascinating. I hope it continues so that history
can be written as it should be on these families.
Best Regards.
Emmett
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 03:29:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
Could Ethelred really be this Alfred de Taillebois of Lincoln, as I have
read and someone thought, Ethelred/Alfred they sound similiar must be the
same but are not??!!!
I don't think Alfred of Lincoln was ever called de Taillebois. As to
whether they could be the same, why would you think they are? He was a
Breton, originally tennant of Ralph de Gael, and is thought to have
married a daughter of William Malet, which would make him uncle of Ivo's
wife Lucy. As such, he could hardly be identical to Lucy's (? step-)
son-in-law.

At the risk of repeating myself, the way to attack this is with original
documents, not simply pulling together the longstanding body of
contradictory guesswork, nor simply looking for people with the same
name to connect.
Post by butlergrt
Why is Ivo so important? It is alleged that Roger fitzReinfrid was his
youger brother, if so that in a way explains Gilbert FitzReinfrid, but if
The chronology doesn't work - Roger Fitz Reinfrid was of the same
generation as William II de Lancaster, at least three generations after Ivo.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-25 22:22:29 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/25/05 1:21:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

<< Beatrix Taillebois was the daughter of Ivo Taillebois. She had two
husbands
(1) Ethelred (2) Ribald of Middleham. Ketel is the son of Ethelred and we
are questioning whether the chronology allows that Ethelred's wife Beatrix
Taillebois was Ketel's mother. It is too tight a timeline to actually
permit
Beatrix to be Ketel's mother unless she gave birth to him at 13 or 14 which
is
the point I was trying to make. >>


OK NOW I have fixed my data so I'm following you.
It seems to me from what's been said that Ethelred could actually be
contemporary with his father-in-law Ivo and thus Beatrix would be more likely a second
wife and not mother to Ketel or Gilbert.

Will
[.]nz
2005-11-27 02:16:53 UTC
Permalink
This is from the Book " The Acient House of Curwen" By JH Curwen

Elftred =
I
I

-------------------------------------------------------
Maldred = Wadgyth I I
I
I Kitel = Christina William
Gilbert =Godith
I I
I
Gospatrick = Christiana I
I
I I
I
Gunhilda = Orm
de Lancaster
I
I
Gospatrick = Egelina Engaine

Brendan Wilson
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 02:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by [.]nz
This is from the Book " The Acient House of Curwen" By JH Curwen
Your chart came through as a total mess. Perhaps tou could try it in a
text-only format.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-26 23:17:17 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<<
The approximate dates in the chart below were calculated using a dating
model I developed for the Preston line which has proved to be a
remarkably accurate model when interleafed with actual records. >>

Please can you explain your "dating model" for our edification.
Thanks
Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 02:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will,

My dating system, the concept is not original but is the product of
original work, which I call ?unified generational check? or ?ugc? was
developed using 55 lines of different family descents occurring between
1000-1600. 18 of these lines come from my own work based upon families
who were associated with the Preston family over the years. The
remainder of the data came from the internet site of Tim Powys-Lybbe, a
well respected genealogist, in his own words an amateur, and frequent
contributor to the Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.medieval, who has produced
many lines of descent which can be found at his site. The ?ugc? is
based upon the difference of the firmest early dates in the lineage
(some confidence exists in dating Preston wives? ancestry status) to
16th century dates divided by the number of intervening generations. In
fact, this representation of the average interval between the father?s
birth and his first born provides a model based upon data from 55
family lines between 1000-1600. The interval turned out to be slightly
over 29 years which I rounded to 29 years. In the case of the Preston
line, I worked backward from the firm date of John Preston b.1511 based
upon his father?s inquisition. It is reasonable to expect this model
could reflect the nominal birth dates for the individuals in the
Preston line. I have used this to calculate life spans for the
individuals and then matched these with actual records for the
individual. I was extremely pleased with this final correlation. While
only a rough check of life spans when applied to other lines, it is a
useful tool in ensuring proper generational alignment with
intermarriages and particularly useful when examining charter dates
correlating with the life spans of the various witnesses. I reasoned
that the Preston line should be no different than these other families
and would also follow this ugc model, and it proved extremely useful in
establishing the lifetimes of Preston individuals in the line and
reconciling them to the records.

The following table reflects the dating system applied to my Preston
line work. I find the correlation of calculated deaths matching the
records rather well.

Column A shows the individual?s name.

Column B shows the 29 year b. to b. ugc separation which reflects the
nominal birth year which has been calculated based upon data
from 55 different family lines between 1000-1500 working backward from
the factual birth date of John Preston V b. 1511 (inquest)

Column C shows Ancestral file (submitted by Doris Rock) birth dates;
* reflects a 26 year b. to b. separation which was Medieval/ History
Unit policy for this period.

Column D shows the original 30 year b. to b. ugc based upon descent
for 18 families. This was my initial ugc which was revised by Column B.

Column E reflects a calculated death date of 70 years from ugc

Column F reflects probable death date found in records


NameA B(ugc) C D E F

Eldred 1018 1001 1088 alive 1086 (Keats-Rohan)
Ketel 1047 1031 1117 alive 1020-1030 (Farrer [F])
Orme 1076 1061 1146 d. ca 1135/40 (Kay Allen)
Osulf 1105 1091 1175 alive 1189-1199 (Farrer)
Uchtred (Richard I) 1134 1156 1121 1204 alive 1198 (Farrer)
Richard II Sir 1163 1182* 1151 1233 alive 1225, d. bef 1241 [F]
Richard III Sir 1192 1208* 1181 1263 alive 1277 (Farrer)
Richard IV Sir 1221 1234* 1211 1291 d. bef 1290 (Farrer)
Richard V Sir 1250 1260* 1241 1320 d. 1315 or bef @ 69y [F]
Richard VI Sir 1279 1286* 1271 1349 possibly alive 1353 [F]
Richard VII Sir 1308 1312* 1301 1378 possibly alive 1387 [F]
John I Sir 1337 1338* 1331 1407 alive 1404 (Farrer)
John II Sir 1366 1367 1361 1436 d. after 1427 (Farrer)
Richard IX 1395 1395 1391 1465 alive 1451 (Farrer)
Thomas I 1424 1431 1421 1494
John IV 1453 1464 1451 1523 alive 1500-1515 (A2A)
Thomas II Sir 1482 1485 1481 1552 d. 6 Nov, 1523 (inquest) [F]
John V 1511 1511 1511 1581 d. 14 Jan 1576/7 (inquest) [F]


An additional Table reflects Calculated Dates: Independent
Comparison/Confirmation

Column A shows the individual?s name.

Column B shows my 29 year b. to b. ugc separation which reflects the
nominal birth year which has been calculated based upon data
from 55 different family lines between 1000-1500 working backward from
the factual birth date of John Preston V, b. 1511 (inquest) these dates
are circa since actual dates in this timeframe generally do not exist.
My ugcB is 87 years for 3 generations which also happens to be
identical to the 87 years Tim Powys-Lybbe used when he developed the +9
& -8 year statistical range.

Column C reflects the statistical birth range error surrounding the 29
year b. to b interval. This birth approximation is based upon Tim
Powys-Lybbe statistical analysis of 87 years +9 years & -8 years per 3
generations.

Column D reflects my original ugc of 30 years b. to b. revised and
shown by Column B

Column E shows Ancestral file (submitted by Doris Rock) birth dates;
* reflects a 26 year b. to b. separation which was Medieval/ History
Unit policy for this period.

Column F shows the ?85 years for 3 generations? rule of thumb used by
historians and genealogists for the medieval timeframe.

NameA B(ugc) C D E F__

Eldred 1018 1015-1021 1001 1029.3
Ketel 1047 1044-1050 1031 1057.7
Orme 1076 1073-1079 1061 1086
Osulf 1105 1102-1108 1091 1114.3
Uchtred (Richard I) 1134 1131-1137 1121 1156 1142.7
Richard II Sir 1163 1160-1166 1151 1182* 1171
Richard III Sir 1192 1189-1295 1181 1208* 1199.3
Richard IV Sir 1221 1218-1224 1211 1234* 1227.7
Richard V Sir 1250 1247-1253 1241 1260* 1256
Richard VI Sir 1279 1276-1282 1271 1286* 1284.3
Richard VII Sir 1308 1305-1311 1301 1312* 1312.7
John I Sir 1337 1334-1340 1331 1338* 1341
John II Sir 1366 1363-1369 1361 1367 1369.3
Richard IX 1395 1392-1398 1391 1395 1397.7
Thomas I 1424 1421-1427 1421 1431 1426
John IV 1453 1450-1456 1451 1464 1454.3
Thomas II Sir 1482 1479-1485 1481 1485 1482.7
John V 1511 1511 1511 1511 1511

Sincerely,

Dix Preston
W***@aol.com
2005-11-26 23:21:22 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< Ref 1: " ELDRED or ETHELDRED, second feudal Lord of Kendal, who m.
Adgitha, and was s. by his son, KITEL, third Baron of Kendal." Source:
"A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great
Britain and Ireland Enjoying Territorial Possessions or High Official
Rank; but Uninvested with Heritable Honours." by John Burke, Esq.
vol. I, 1834. >>

I'm not sure this volume, published in 1834 should be considered any sort of
reliable source.
Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 00:47:18 UTC
Permalink
In a message From: ***@aol.com; Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 Will
Johnson writes:

<< Ref 1: " ELDRED or ETHELDRED, second feudal Lord of Kendal, who m.
Adgitha, and was s. by his son, KITEL, third Baron of Kendal." Source:

"A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great
Britain and Ireland Enjoying Territorial Possessions or High Official
Rank; but Uninvested with Heritable Honours." by John Burke, Esq.
vol. I, 1834. >>

I'm not sure this volume, published in 1834 should be considered any
sort of
reliable source.
Will Johnson >>

Dear Will

Judging from your 4 messages I appear to have caught your attention. I
will answer them all hopefully with acceptable answers, but it will
take me some time so please bear with me.

Two corrections to my original message which I omitted. First, The
Keats-Rohan references are from DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS. The Lancaster de
Taillebois descent is from her book. I modified it to account for the
two wives of Eldred who were essentially a generation apart. Second,
<<4. Christina de Stainton approx b. 1105 m. Michael II le Fleming
approx b. 1005>>should read 1105.

I wish I had found some contemporary documentation, but the following
is all I have at this point.

1. "Eldred --1st [sic] Baron Kendal, Lord Workington (ref 1) &
Aldgytha (ref 1)" Son was "Ketel --3rd Baron Kendal (ref 1) d. abt
1150 & Christiana (ref 2). Author cites ref 1: Faris. "The
Plantagenet Ancestry," 140:8i; ref 2. Faris, "The Plantagenet
Ancestry," 210:8"

· Kenneth Harper Finton, Editor/ Publisher, THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
( ***@aol.com) Subject: Re: Ivo and Lucy Talybois; Date: 1 Oct 1998;
soc.genealogy.medieval message archives.

2. "Lancaster, Lords of Kendal: Eldred, Lord of Kendal, b abt 1008,
of Kendal, Westmorland, England. He md Aldgytha abt 1030. She was b abt
1114. Child of Eldred and Aldgytha was: Ketel, Lord of Kendal b abt
1045, of Kendal, Westmorland, England. He md Christiana abt 1068. She
was b abt 1052."

· http://www.geneajourney.com/lancast.html; author unidentified but
cites "Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to
America before 1700," Seventh Edition, 1999, by Frederick Lewis Weis,
with Additions and Corrections by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr.,
Genealogical Publishing Company. Line 34[23-26], Line 38[25], Line
88[25-27].

3. Internet site: "Appleby Castle - Cumbria - England....The Barons
of Kendal... Eldred (sometimes spelled Elftred). Eldred became the 2nd
Baron of Kendall and married Edgitha who was the granddaughter of King
Ethelred II. Their first son, Ketel, became the 3rd Baron of
Kendal...."

· http://www.orme.org.uk/appleby.html

4. "Aldgytha, F, #27174, Relationship 28th great-grandmother of Laura
Leighton Adams. Marriage: Eldred, 1st Baron Kendal [sic], Lord
Workington; Child Ketel, 3rd Baron Kendal d. c 1150."

· http://home.comcast.net/~desilva22/p45.htm#i27174; Citations: Marlyn
Lewis, "Ancestry of Elizabeth of York" (Through Twenty Generations)
(Arvada, CO: HT Communications, 1999).

5. "Eldred, 2nd Baron of Kendall. Eldred or sometimes spelled
(Elftred) married Edgitha who was the granddaughter of King Ethelred
II. They had the following children: Ketel who became the 3rd Baron of
Kendall as well as Gilbert and William. Ketel married Christiana and
they had a son Orm who became the 4th Baron [sic] of Kendall. He
married Gunilda, daughter of the Earl of Cumberland. They had two sons
Gospatrick Ormson 5th Baron [sic] of Kendall and Robert Ormson. Robert
married Christina, daughter of Anketin de Meynwarin. Their children
trace directly to William de Thoroboughe."

· http://home.att.net/~rgartee/thornsb/ivode.htm; A Brief History of
Ancestry de Thornburghe

FDP Note: The chronology suggests that Eldred may have married
Maldred's widow granddaughter of King Ethelred II. This is my
speculation and possibly we can explore later. I have some evidence
that suggests he may be son of Maldred and the heraldic descent of
Maldred's red on silver is found downstream in de Lancaster family
and the Preston family as well as neighbors in the Kendal area.

"92.[Pedigree #]--THE "LANCASTER" FAMILY; Arms: Ar. Two bars gules.
On a Canton of the second, a lion passant guardant Or.

1. Eldred, second Baron of Kendal, mar. Adigitha.
2. Ketel, third Baron of Kendal: his son; granted Morland to St.
Mary's; m. Christiana, and had:
I. Gilbert, of whom presently. [FDP Note: incorrect per Keats-Rohan
reconstruction.]
II. William.
III. Alan.

IV. Orme, Lord of Seaton, who m. Gunilda, dau. of Cospatrick (see No.
110 on the "Curwen" pedigree)."

· Irish and Anglo-Irish Landed Gentry page 107 [genealogylibrary.com
book]
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/_glc_/3375/3375_107.html

I hope this satisfies your query. One has to go with what one finds.

Sincerely,

Dix Preston
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 02:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will

In a message From: ***@aol.com; Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 Will
Johnson writes:

<< Ref 1: " ELDRED or ETHELDRED, second feudal Lord of Kendal, who m.
Adgitha, and was s. by his son, KITEL, third Baron of Kendal." Source:

"A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great
Britain and Ireland Enjoying Territorial Possessions or High Official
Rank; but Uninvested with Heritable Honours." by John Burke, Esq.
vol. I, 1834. >>

I'm not sure this volume, published in 1834 should be considered any
sort of
reliable source.
Will Johnson >>


Judging from your 4 messages I appear to have caught your attention. I
will answer them all hopefully with acceptable answers, but it will
take me some time so please bear with me.

Two corrections to my original message which I omited. First, The
Keats-Rohan references are from DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS. The Lancaster de
Taillebois descent is from her book. I modified it to account for the
two wives of Eldred who were essentially an generation apart. Second,
<<4. Christina de Stainton approx b. 1105 m. Michael II le Fleming
approx b. 1005>>should read 1105.

I wish I had found some contemporary documentation, but the following
is all I have at this point.

1. "Eldred --1st [sic] Baron Kendal, Lord Workington (ref 1) & Aldgytha
(ref 1)? Son was ?Ketel --3rd Baron Kendal (ref 1) d. abt 1150 &
Christiana (ref 2). Author cites ref 1: Faris. ?The Plantagenet
Ancestry," 140:8i; ref 2. Faris, "The Plantagenet Ancestry," 210:8
Source:Kenneth Harper Finton, Editor/ Publisher, THE PLANTAGENET
CONNECTION ( ***@aol.com) Subject: Re: Ivo and Lucy Talybois; Date:
1 Oct 1998; soc.genealogy.medieval message archives.

2. "Lancaster, Lords of Kendal: Eldred, Lord of Kendal, b abt 1008, of
Kendal, Westmorland, England. He md Aldgytha abt 1030. She was b abt
1114. Child of Eldred and Aldgytha was: Ketel, Lord of Kendal b abt
1045, of Kendal, Westmorland, England. He md Christiana abt 1068. She
was b abt 1052." Source: http://www.geneajourney.com/lancast.html;
author unidentified but cites "Ancestral Roots of Certain American
Colonists Who Came to America before 1700," Seventh Edition, 1999, by
Frederick Lewis Weis, with Additions and Corrections by Walter Lee
Sheppard, Jr., Genealogical Publishing Company. Line 34[23-26], Line
38[25], Line 88[25-27].

3. Internet site: "Appleby Castle - Cumbria, England.The Barons of
Kendal Eldred (sometimes spelled Elftred). Eldred became the 2nd Baron
of Kendall and married Edgitha who was the granddaughter of King
Ethelred II. Their first son, Ketel, became the 3rd Baron of Kendal.
Source: http://www.orme.org.uk/appleby.html

4. "Aldgytha, F, #27174, Relationship 28th great-grandmother of Laura
Leighton Adams. Marriage: Eldred, 1st Baron Kendal [sic], Lord
Workington; Child Ketel, 3rd Baron Kendal d. c 1150." Source:
http://home.comcast.net/~desilva22/p45.htm#i27174; Citations: Marlyn
Lewis, ?Ancestry of Elizabeth of York? (Through Twenty Generations)
(Arvada, CO: HT Communications, 1999).

5. "Eldred, 2nd Baron of Kendall. Eldred or sometimes spelled
(Elftred) married Edgitha who was the granddaughter of King Ethelred
II. They had the following children: Ketel who became the 3rd Baron of
Kendall as well as Gilbert and William. Ketel married Christiana and
they had a son Orm who became the 4th Baron [sic] of Kendall. He
married Gunilda, daughter of the Earl of Cumberland. They had two sons
Gospatrick Ormson 5th Baron [sic] of Kendall and Robert Ormson. Robert
married Christina, daughter of Anketin de Meynwarin. Their children
trace directly to William de Thoroboughe."
Source: http://home.att.net/~rgartee/thornsb/ivode.htm; A Brief History
of Ancestry de Thornburghe

FDP Note: The chronology suggests that Eldred may have married
Maldred's widow granddaughter of King Ethelred II. This is my
speculation and possibly we can explore later. I have some evidence
that suggests he may be son of Maldred and the heraldic descent of
Maldred's red on silver is found downstream in de Lancaster family and
the Preston family as well as neighbors in the Kendal area.

"92.[Pedigree #]--THE "LANCASTER" FAMILY; Arms: Ar. Two bars gules. On
a Canton of the second, a lion passant guardant Or.

1. Eldred, second Baron of Kendal, mar. Adigitha.
2. Ketel, third Baron of Kendal: his son; granted Morland to St.
Mary's; m. Christiana, and had:
I. Gilbert, of whom presently. [FDP Note: incorrect per Keats-Rohan
reconstruction.]
II. William.
III. Alan.

IV. Orme, Lord of Seaton, who m. Gunilda, dau. of Cospatrick (see No.
110 on the "Curwen" pedigree). Source: "Irish and Anglo-Irish Landed
Gentry" by O'Hair page 107 [genealogylibrary.com book]
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/_glc_/3375/3375_107.html

I hope this satisfies your query. One has to go with what one finds.

Sincerely,

Dix Preston
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 03:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@aol.com
I wish I had found some contemporary documentation, but the following
is all I have at this point.
1. "Eldred --1st [sic] Baron Kendal, Lord Workington (ref 1) & Aldgytha
(ref 1)? Son was ?Ketel --3rd Baron Kendal (ref 1) d. abt 1150 &
Christiana (ref 2). Author cites ref 1: Faris. ?The Plantagenet
Ancestry," 140:8i; ref 2. Faris, "The Plantagenet Ancestry," 210:8
Perhaps this is an issue problem, but these pages of my edition (the
first) have nothing whatsoever to do with these people, nor do they
appear in the index. Further, since the focus of the work is on the
descendants of Henry II of England, I don't see how these people would
come to be mentioned.
Post by F***@aol.com
Source:Kenneth Harper Finton, Editor/ Publisher, THE PLANTAGENET
1 Oct 1998; soc.genealogy.medieval message archives.
In this publication, all the editor did was extract posts from this
group - at least you should call up the original from the archives and
credit the actual author. More importantly, we seem to be in a
repetitive loop of citing posts to correct corrections witho other
correxctions, all the time getting farther and farther away from actual
original documentary sources.
Post by F***@aol.com
2. "Lancaster, Lords of Kendal: Eldred, Lord of Kendal, b abt 1008, of
Kendal, Westmorland, England. He md Aldgytha abt 1030. She was b abt
If all you have for this Aldgyth is Burke, then she needs to be set
aside, pending documentary evidence.
Post by F***@aol.com
1114. Child of Eldred and Aldgytha was: Ketel, Lord of Kendal b abt
1045, of Kendal, Westmorland, England. He md Christiana abt 1068. She
was b abt 1052." Source: http://www.geneajourney.com/lancast.html;
author unidentified but cites "Ancestral Roots of Certain American
Colonists Who Came to America before 1700," Seventh Edition, 1999, by
Frederick Lewis Weis, with Additions and Corrections by Walter Lee
Sheppard, Jr., Genealogical Publishing Company. Line 34[23-26], Line
38[25], Line 88[25-27].
Line 38 only makes passing reference to William de Lancaster, and no
reference to 'Eldred'.
Post by F***@aol.com
3. Internet site: "Appleby Castle - Cumbria, England.The Barons of
Kendal Eldred (sometimes spelled Elftred). Eldred became the 2nd Baron
of Kendall and married Edgitha who was the granddaughter of King
Ethelred II.
This granddaughter of Ethelred married Maldred, and I know of no
evidence that she married anyone else. As to the 'proper' name of
'Eldred', I would have to see how it appears in the original
documentation, but Eldred does not reflect an authentic Anglo-Saxon name
form (at least not a likely one) and the other versions shown represent
entirely distinct names - Uchtred, AElfred, AEthelred are all distinct.
Post by F***@aol.com
FDP Note: The chronology suggests that Eldred may have married
Maldred's widow granddaughter of King Ethelred II. This is my
speculation and possibly we can explore later.
If this is based solely on the name, then forget it - Eadgyth/Edith was
one of the most popular female names at the time, and it takes more than
the name being the same to make these speculations.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-26 23:34:02 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
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
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 02:21:00 UTC
Permalink
In a message From: ***@aol.com; 24. ***@aol.com
Nov 26, 6:34 pm Will Johnson writes

<<In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com
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 >>


I offer the following which may help you in the chronology.

(1) DE LANCASTRIA, WILLELM FILIUS GILBERTI

?William of Lancaster, also known as William Taillebois, son of Gilbert
and Goditha, sister of Ketel son of Eldred. A defective genealogy in
the Cockersand Cartulary (vol. II. pp. 305-8) made him
great-grandson of Eldred and great-great-grandson of Ivo Taillebois,
who was therefore father of Eldred's wife. In fact, a charter in which
he made a grant to St Leonard's York also contained a confirmation of
the gift of his maternal uncle ('avunculus') Ketcl fitz Eldred, thus
establishing that he was grandson of Eldred. From this it can be
inferred that he was a great-grandson of Ivo Taillebois, whose
post-Domesday barony of Kendal he held. First occurs c.l120. In 1166 he
held 2 fees de novo of Roger de Mowbray at Kendale and Lonsdale in
Westmorland and Horton in Ribblesdale, Yorkshire. Twice married,
secondly, by 1156, to Gundrada, widow or daughter of Roger, earl of
Warwick (d. l153). Father of Jordan (d.v.p.), William II (d. l184), and
Avice, second wife of William II Peverel of Nottingham and secondly
wife of
Richard de Morville (J. Green, 'Ranulf II and Lancashire', in Earldom
of Chester and its Charters, ed. Thackeray, p. 107n.). G. Washington,
'The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal', Transactions
Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 62
(1962). Helwise, daughter and heiress of William II of Lancaster (d.
1184), married Gilbert, son of Roger fitz Reinfrid, who became lord of
Kendal in Westmorland in her right (Sanders, 57). Cronnc/Davis, RRAN
III, no. 337; Dugdale, Monuslicon Anglicanum, III, p. 577, no. III:
Greenway, Charters of The Honour of Mowbray (1972), no. 370; F.
Ragg.? Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page 539

(2) ?William de Taillebois and William of Lancaster are the same
person. The Lancasters are said to be descendants of Ivo de Taillebois
and as William was governor of Lancaster Castle assumed the name
accordingly.[Stemma Ivonis de Tayleboyse] (ex registro S. Mar Ebor New
Monast iii 553). Dugdale in Monasticon [v.5, p.249] claims that William
was called Taillebois and by permission from the king (Henry II)
changed his name to Lancaster.? Source: Sanders ?English Baronies?: a
study of the origin and descent (1086-1327) (Oxford, 1963) p.56.

(3) ?An important episode during the first decade (FDP note 1154-1164)
of the second Henry's reign was the royal confirmation of an agreement
made before the king between the monks of Furness and William, son of
Gilbert, to fix for all time the boundaries between Furness Fells and
Kentdale, and for a partition of Furness Fells between the two parties.
(Lancs. Pipe R., 310.)? [Farrer, Records of Kendale, Vol. I, p,xii]

(4) ?We now come to the difficult period which covered the reign of
Stephen. Fortunately we possess distinct and clear evidence that
Stephen, as king, enfeoffed a knight of the lands of Warton in Kentdale
and the wide territory of Garstang, Lancashire, to hold for the service
of one knight. This was William de LANCASTER, son Gilbert by Godith his
wife, ( Farrer, Lancs. Pipe R., 392.) described in the Inquest of
service made in 1212 as "Willelmus filius Gilberti primus," (Book of
Fees, (P.R.O.), 206.) that is, the first to be enfeoffed of that fee.
About the same time Roger de MOWBRAY, who was of age about the year
1140, enfeoffed the same William of all the grantor's land of Lonsdale,
Kentdale and Horton in Ribblesdale, to hold by the service of four
knights. (Illustrative Documents, No. II in the Appendix.) The date of
the charter is indeterminate, but it was certainly issued during the
period 1145-1154. It did not continue effective for very long.?
Records of Kendale Vol 1 by William Farrer Litt. Edited by John F.
Curwen, F.S.A. <
http://edenlinks.rootsweb.com/1gp/RECORDS/FAR/INTRO.HTM >[Farrer,
Records of Kendale, Vol. I, p,xi]

(5) ?There was a close tie between another family of Morevill, who were
tenants of honor of Huntingdon, and the Lancasters of Kentdale. Hugh de
MOREVILL, constable of Scotland, died in 1162 and was succeeded by
Richard his son, who then became constable. This Richard married Avice,
daughter of William de LANCASTER I, at whose death in 1170, Morevill
promised Henry II 200 marks for a writ of right of the lands which he
claimed in marriage with his said wife. (Pipe R., 16 Hen. II, 53.) As
this fine was recorded on the Lancashire Pipe Roll, it would appear
that the lands which he claimed were in Lancashire or Lonsdale, rather
than in Kentdale. Richard and Avice confirmed to the monks of Furness,
lands in Selside in Ribblesdale and Newby, Yorks., the year before
Avice's death which occurred in December, 1192. (Furness Coucher, ii,
pt. 2, 311-46 pass.)? [Farrer, Records of Kendale, Vol. I, p,xii]

(6) WILLIAM DE LANCASTER II ?Histoire, I, 263-64 II, 7289-7318.
William of Lancaster was dead by Michaelmas 1184, at which time the
King's sheriff answered for his men: Pipe Roll 30 Henry II, Pipe Roll
Society, 33 (1912), 37.? [also Records of Kendale? Vol 1, p. xiii]
Source: http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/vincent.htm

(7) ?l154- 1189: William son of William de Lancaster gives to the
brethren of the hospital of St. Peter, York, the land called Dockerga,
by bounds (described), in exchange for land in Kirkeby in Kendale which
Ketel son of Eltred gave them and the land of Bartonheved which
William, the donor's father gave them; Cal. of Chart. R., ii, 442.?
Source: ?Records of Kendale? Vol 1 by William Farrer Litt. Edited by
John F. Curwen, page 203.

(8) ?William II was ?Steward to Henry II "Curtmantle", King of England
(1154-1189)?
Source: http://home.austarnet.com.au/dfgoonan/LANCASTER2.htm

(9) ?1184-1186: Henry II gave to William MARSHAL the custody of the
heir of William de LANCASTER (Helewise); See Kirkby in Kendale
(Chapter).? Source: ?Records of Kendale? Vol 1 by William Farrer,
Litt.D., Edited by John F. Curwen, page 131.

(10) ?William (II) [de Lancaster] witnessed his father's 1120/30
confirmation of Chetell's gifts to St Peter's Hospital, York. His
father's second wife Gundreda married him after 1153 (the year of her
first husband's death). So William (II) was not her son. His sister,
Avice may have been Gundreda's daughter.[CP XII/2:362; G Washington
"The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal" in
*Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian &
Archaelogical Society* LXII (1962) 99]? Source: From: Richard
Borthwick; Subject: Re: Researching DE BRUS and descendants; Aug 21
1999, Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval Please note I do not have
quotations of Richard Borthwick?s citations.

Sincerely,

Dix Preston
W***@aol.com
2005-11-26 23:40:01 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< 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 >>

Looking at this argument again.
Are they attempting to equate "William of Workington" son of Ketel, with
"William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendel d 1170" ?
If so I don't see that this argument succeeds. In my opinion these two are
at least one if not two generations apart.

Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 02:12:50 UTC
Permalink
First: In a message From: ***@aol.com; Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005
6:40 pm Will Johnson writes:

<<In a message dated 11/26/05 2:06:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com
writes:

<< 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 >>

Looking at this argument again.
Are they attempting to equate "William of Workington" son of Ketel,
with
"William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendel d 1170" ?
If so I don't see that this argument succeeds. In my opinion these two
are
at least one if not two generations apart.

Will Johnson>>

No. William son of Ketel from the charter is not William de Lancaster I
although many have made this interpretation. I will attach in my answer
to another of your messages some quotations from sources that may help
you with the chronology

Sincerely,

Dix Preston
W***@aol.com
2005-11-27 01:05:39 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/05 4:51:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

1) Faris. "The Plantagenet Ancestry," 140:8i; ref 2. Faris, "The Plantagenet
Ancestry," 210:8"
2) Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before
1700," Seventh Edition, 1999, by Frederick Lewis Weis, with Additions and
Corrections by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., Genealogical Publishing Company. Line
34[23-26], Line 38[25], Line 88[25-27].
3). Internnet http://www.orme.org.uk/appleby.html
4) Marlyn Lewis, "Ancestry of Elizabeth of York" (Through Twenty Generations)
(Arvada, CO: HT Communications, 1999).
5) Irish and Anglo-Irish Landed Gentry page 107 [genealogylibrary.com book]

Sincerely, Dix Preston >>

I agree Dix that sometimes we have to go with what we can find. These
citations, which I've extracted out of your post show only secondary citations.
Each of these works (hopefully) cites the underlying work out of *which* they
gleaned their information. It is those underlying sources which we must locate
and post. It should be apparent that there has been a bit of misinformation on
this line. So although your research is helpful in finding these secondary
sources, it's not definitive in establishing ther relationships it attempts to
establish without knowing what primary documents that used to create the line.

Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 03:02:11 UTC
Permalink
I agree Will. Life is tough and there has been a lot of misinformation
out there.

Cheers

Dix Preston
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 03:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
I agree Dix that sometimes we have to go with what we can find.
Do we, though? There are time when you know that what you find is
without value, and you sometimes have to reject everything you find, and
go with nothing. There are times when you don't know whether it is
valuble or not - do you have to go with what you find then, or again set
it aside until you know one way or the other?

taf
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 03:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by butlergrt
SO... Here we have their daughter Hawise who marries Gilbert fitzReinfrid
son of Gilbert(so it is said) son of Roger fitzReinfrid de Breure,
apparently nobodys. At that day in age? that wouold be beyond belief I
think,
I note that AR7 indicates Roger Fitz Reinfrid was a witness of the
king's will, a Judge and Sheriff of Sussex and of Berkshire - so much
for being "nobodys", eh?

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-27 03:48:48 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/2005 6:51:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
NameA B(ugc) C D E F
Eldred 1018 1001 1088 alive 1086 (Keats-Rohan)
Ketel 1047 1031 1117 alive 1020-1030 (Farrer [F])
Orme 1076 1061 1146 d. ca 1135/40 (Kay Allen)
The flaw is this method is that the further away you are from any particular
event, the more errors you introduce into each generation. So while you may
*guess* that a father is 29 years older than his son, the grandfather being 58
years older doubles the error factor. This method makes it appear that the
error factor is the same in each generation but it's not.

So 29 years plus or minus 12 becomes 58 years plus of minus 24.

That 24 years can make a significant difference.
Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 23:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will and interested others:

Unfortunately, the Preston ancestry is not so well defined in the
literature or records as one may have liked. It required some detective
work to offer a theory of the line. Part of this work required matching
the theory with extant records. To shed some light on this I developed
the Tables found in another of my messages. I realize that these
calculated life times are only averages and there is great opportunity
for error and that errors propagate the farther one gets from a known
event. If you have a better way of getting brackets around individuals
I would be glad to hear a better approach.
From my own experience of interleafing real Preston records with my
table over the period of 1000-1500 I have been very pleased with the
correlations to the table. Since my tables are considered questionable,
and this is a fair criticism and not unexpected, I would like to
approach the question of different mother for Ketel and Goditha from an
other perspective. This matter I see as the crucial argument.

After many months in Newsgroup archives reading the conversations
regarding this family provided by very highly qualified individuals in
genealogy and history, I have accepted that Dr. Keats-Rohan has
unscrambled the confusion surrounding this family.

In her book, �DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS: PROSOPOGRAPHY OF PERSONS OCCURRING
IN ENGLISH DOCUMENTS 1066-1166; II. Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum;� K.
S. B. Keats-Rohan, THE BOYDELL PRESS, she provides the following chart
along with biographies of the individuals. This construction differs
from most accepted lines in the literature, and is argued against by
some of the �experts� of soc.genealogy.medieval. However, it explains
several difficulties in the literature and helps explain the Preston
origins more logically and chronologically, in my opinion.

K. S. B. Keats-Rohan�s Chart: The family of Lancaster or Taillebois

Ivo m. (2)
Taillebois Lucy dau. Of
d. 1093 m. (1) Turold
N.N.
I
Beatrice d. m. (2)
by1121 m. (1) Ribald fl.
Eldred 1086
________I_______ _______
I___________________
I I I
I I I
Ketel Godith Ralph
Hervey Rainald William
m. m. Taillebois
Christina Gilbert of m.
I Lancaster Agnes de
I I Brus
I I
___ I____ I
I I I
Orm William William of m. (2)
I Lancaster or Gundrada of
I Taillebois Warwick
I fl. 1120-1170
I m. (1) N. N.
I I_____________
I I I
Gospatric Avice m. William II
William II Peverel d. 1184

The problem of Ketel and Goditha's parents can only be solved through
chronological analysis. My tables have been tested with actual records
I have collected for the Preston line which total to more than 70
�Word� pages. I am comfortable with my findings in this line, and the
calculated timelines reflected in my tables which many will call
guesses.

Let�s try to get to the Ketel and Goditha problem in another direction
than from my tables, but using the 29 year average interval based upon
55 different families.

First, Dr. Keats-Rohan provides the following on our individuals.

(1) IVO DE TAILLEBOIS: � Ivo Taillebois, probably brother of Ralph
Taillebois, a sheriff of Bedfordshire who was dead by 1086, was a
prominent administrator throughout the reign of William I and well into
that of William II. He appears to have been twice married since he was
ancestor of the English family surnamed 'of Lancaster' or Taillebois
who descended from the thegn Eldred, alive in 1086. In 1093 he can be
seen to have had a daughter Beatrice, then married to Ribald of
Richmond. She was dead in 1121, when Ivo's widow Lucy was married to
her third husband. Lucy and Beatrice, probably widow of Eldred before
marriage to Ribald, were contemporaries, so Lucy must have been Ivo's
second wife. She was the daughter of Ivo's predecessor as sheriff of
Lincoln, Turold, who was probably a Norman. Her mother undoubtedly had
English ancestry since she was the daughter of William Malet, a sheriff
of York who seems to have had English maternal antecedents.� Source:
DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page 35

(2) TAILLEBOIS, BEATRIX: �Daughter of Ivo Taillebois (q.v.) and his
unknown first wife. Clay thought Beatrice was probably illegitimate
(EYC, v, 291), because none of Ivo's property passed to Ribald with his
wife Beatrice. Ivo's second wife Lucy was an important heiress whose
inheritance formed the basis of the land Ivo held in Domesday Book This
fief, the honour of Bolingbroke, was inherited by the two sons of
Lucy's subsequent marriages, whereas Ivo's own barony of Kendal,
granted after 1086 went (possibly) to Ketel son of Eldred and then to
Ketel�s nephew William fitz Gilbert of Lancaster, surnamed Taillebois
(Sanders, 56). In the late twelfth century the writer Peter of Blois
claimed that Ivo had had a sole daughter, �nobly married� Defective
genealogies, in the Cockersand Cartulary and the Register of St Mary's
York (Cockersand Cart., ii, pp. 305-8) made William a descendant of
Eldred and Ivo Taillebois, who must have been father of Eldred's wife.
Beatrice is known to have married Ribald, half-brother of the
Conqueror's Breton cousin Count Alan before 1093; Monasticon
Anglicanum. III, p. 553 no. xx. She was dead by c 1121 at the time of
a gift to St Mary's by Ribald and their son Ralph Taillebois: Given
that Ketel Fitz Eldred, his nephew William of Lancaster, and Ralph
fitz Ribald, were all active c.1120, .just a few years before Ivo�s
widow buried her third husband, one can conclude that Beatrice was a
legitimate heir of Ivo by a wife previous to Lucy, who was Beatrice's
contemporary, and that she was first the wife of the Englishman Eldred
and subsequently the wife of Ribald. For the descendants of Beatrice
and Ribald see Rev. H. C. Fitz Herbert An original pedigree ofTailbois
and Neville', The Genealogist, ns iii, 31. Clay. Early Yorkshire
Charters (1936), V, no. 358.� Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S.
B. Keats-Rohan, page 1121

(3) FILIUS ELDRED, KETEL: �Son of Eldred and a daughter of Ivo
Taillcbois (q.v.), some of whose land in the barony of Kendal he
inherited. Benefactor of the abbey of St Bees, founded 1120, to which
he gave land in Morland and Workington (Register St Bees, pp. 233 -34,
no. 212) with the assent of his wife Christiana and son William. Father
also of Orm, whose son Gospatric was his eventual heir. His grant of
land to St Leonard's, York, was confirmed by his sister's son William
fitz Gilbert of Lancaster (q.v.). He died several years after 1120.
G. Washington, �The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of
Kendal', Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian &
Archaeological Society 62 (1962). Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum,
III, pp. 548-60, no. V.� Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B.
Keats-Rohan, page 881

William Farrer provides:

(4) �1184-1189 Notification by Henry II, addressed to our dear son
Richard, comte de Poitiers, of his grant to Gilbert son of Roger
Fitz-Reinfrid, our sewer, of the daughter of William de Lancastre with
her whole inheritance. Witnesses : Geoffrey our son and chancellor,
William Marshal, Richard de Humet; Reg. of D. at Levens, f. 79; Farrer,
Laws. 'Pipe R., 395.� Source: Farrer, �Records of Kendale� Vol. I, p.
1-2.

(5) �1189 At Rouen, on 20th July, king Richard confirmed to Gilbert
son of Roger Fitz-Rainfrei, sewer to the king, his father, the daughter
of William de Lancastre ; Benedict, Gesta Ricardi, ii, 73.

This gift, or rather confirmation by Richard I of the earlier gift by
the king's father, is recorded in the chancellor's own words, addressed
to the comte de Poitiers, now king of England, in L' Histoire de
Guillaume Le Marechal, by Paul Meyer, 11. 9379-84, where it is also
shewn that the daughter of William de Lancastre was then, or had been,
in the wardship of William Marshal:�
" Et si vos di en bone fei
" Que Gilebert le filz Reinfrei
" Ne retirit il pas a filastre :
" Cele li dona de Lancastre
" Que li [Marechal] ont en garde,
" Dont il fist molt corteise garde."
On the same occasion the chancellor informed king Richard of the late
king's gift of the young heiress of Striguil (Chepstow) to William
Marshal, and of "la pucele " of Chateauroux to Baldwin de Bethune; ib.,
11. 9362-9378. See Sizergh, s.d., 1184-89.� Source: Farrer, �Records
of Kendale� Vol. I, p. 2.

It appears Hawsie/Helewise de Lancaster was delivered to ward ship in
1084 at her father�s death and given in marriage in 1189. If she was 20
at marriage, then born 1169. Applying our 29 year average interval
makes her father William de Lancaster II approx b. 1140 and his father
approx b. 1111. Continuing to Goditha approx b. 1082 and on to Beatrice
approx b. 1053 and lastly to Ivo approx b. 1024. If she were 15 at her
marriage, then Beatrice was approx b. 1058 and Ivo 1029. So she is
bracketed between 1053 and 1058 plus or minus ???. This simplistic
representation, of course, does not represent the ebb and flow of the
real generational interval which unfortunately is unknown, and any
birth dates in the literature are merely the product of someone�s
dating scheme. However, it is a pretty good �what if.� Let�s beat it
against some data. Dr. Keats-Rohan provides the following.

(6) DE LANCASTRIA, GILBERT: �His son and successor William fitz Gilbert
of Lancaster was nephew of an Englishman Ketel son of Eldred whose
sister Godith was Gilbert's wife. His father is unknown. William occurs
from c. 1120-70, G. Washington, 'The parentage of William de Lancaster,
lord of Kendal'. Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian &
Archaeological Society 62 (1962). Dugdale. Monuslicon Anglicanum,
III, p. 577, no. III; Greenway, Charters of the Honour of Mowbrey
(1972), no. 370; F. Ragg, �Charter�s of St Peter's (St Leonard's
Hospital, York', TCWAAS (1909), p. 237� Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS;
by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page 539.

(7) Nigel Barker writing in GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives contributes the
following information which he apparently quotes from VICTORIA HISTORY
OF LANCASHIRE
VOL I pp35. Notes from passage on the family of Lancaster, Barons of
Kendal (I have not see the VCH Lancs text, therefore I present the text
as contained in Nigel�s post.)

�[The origin of the family is obscure.]
[Small landholder within the Barony of Coupland.]
[Granted land by William Meschine when he was granted his fief by Henry
I.]

The first recorded member is little mentioned beyond the bare fact that
his name was Gilbert and his wife's name was Godith (Lancs Fines Rec
Soc XXXIX 61). To this the monkish chroniclers have added the fiction
that he was the son of Ketel, son of Eldred, son of Ivo Taillebois (Mon
Angl iii 553 & Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem Soc (New Series) xxxix
305), whereas he was almost, if not quite, contemporary with Ivo, by
whom
Gilbert and his predecessor was probably enffeoffed of those manors
within the Barony of Westmoreland which his descendants, the barons of
Kendal, where (sic were) chief lords. (Gilbert fitz Reinford & Helewise
his wife confirmed some of Ivo's grants to the Abbey of St. Mary, York
(Mon Ang iii 566))

The connection which existed between the heirs of Ketel, son of Eldred,
namely the Curwens of Workington, and the Lancasters, of whom the
former held several manors in Cumberland and Westmoreland, was probably
of tenure rather than consanguinity. Intimately connected with this
subject is a charter, of which an ancient transcript is preserved at
Levens Hall, by which Roger de Mawbury grants to William son of Gilbert
de Lancaster, in fee and inheritance, "all my land of Lonsdale, and of
Kendal, and Horton in Ribblesdale, to hold by the service of 4 knights
(Reg of Deeds at Levens Hall f79, Lancs Pipe Reg 389). It would be
interesting to discuss the question as to whether this charter
represents an original grant or merely a confirmation of a much older
infeudation.
William son of Gilbert was the first to be enfeoffed of land in
Lancaster. In 1212 he is described as "Willelmus filiuus Gibberti
premus". He is not always described as "de Lancaster" for which it may
be inferred that he was the first of his line to be associated with the
Court and its Lords. The Mon. Chronicle to which allusion has already
been made tells us that he caused himself to be called "de Lancaster"
by the King's Licence, and to be styled before the King in Parliament
(sic) "William de Lancaster, Baron Kendal". The same Chronicle states
that he married Gundreda, formerly Countess of Warwick, whose husband,
Roger de Newburgh, died in 1153.

William de Lancaster died in or after 1170. Et seq. Nigel Barker�
Source: Source: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives, Nigel Barker. Subject: Re: Ivo
and Lucy Talybois; Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998.

Having bracketed Beatrice let�s look at the other side of this
interesting family.

I start with the daughter of Gospatric the Earl who has many name
spellings. I have seen her identified as Gunnilda, Gunhilda, Gunilda,
Gravelda, Gunelda, and Gumilda. By any other name she is the person
referred to as follows.

�Of this marriage of Orme with Gunilda, Jackson (at p. 3 of his
�Curwens of Workington�) says: "No more noble and ancient strain of
blood flows in the veins of any in our land, than can be deduced--and
that in irrefragible evidence--through this marriage."� Source: �Irish
and Anglo-Irish Landed Gentry�; Author: John O'Hart; Call Number:
R929.1 O36; M. H Gill & Son. Dublin. 1884.

I am of the opinion Orme, having found such a treasure, was anxious to
marry. I would suggest that he was of the same age as she and we know
her birth was before her fathers� death d. ca1075. [Keaths-Rohan,
p.221]. If he was older, then it helps my case even more.
So we have nominally b. ca 1075 for both. Incidentally, my calculations
call Ketel ugc 1076. Looking at their ancestry and using the 29 year
average ( from 55 families not the ugc unique to the Preston line)
interval plus or minus ???, we find Ketel nominally b. 1047 and Eldred
nominally b. 1018. For his wife we have father Gospatric I nominally b.
1047 and Maldred nominally b. 1018 and Crinan nominally b. 989. These
dates are not far off from those found in the literature which has
Gospatric I b. ca 1040 and Maldred b. ca 1010 and Crinan b. ca 980. In
any event we have Ketel and Gospatric the Earl in the same generation,
and Eldred and Maldred in the same generation. From above we have Ivo�s
nominal b. 1024 which places him younger than Eldred and Maldred, but
older than Gospatric I and Ketel. Now Eldred, looking around for a new
wife, finds Beatrice dau of Ivo and N. N. who is bracketed for birth
1053-1058 probably 15-20 at marriage to Eldred ca 1068 to 1073 and
Goditha born nominally 1070-1075.

This leaves separation between Ketel and Goditha�s births basically a
generational interval apart. It suggests two different mothers as wives
of Eldred. Whether Ketel�s mother was named Algitha, as I have
suggested from secondary sources, or was an unknown wife or if you
disagree with my tables� methodology; it doesn�t change the logic of my
scenario above.

Therefore, Beatrice�s children were nominally born ca 1070-1075 and
William de Lancaster nominally born ca 1099-1104 and his son William
II, from an unknown wife, born nominally 1128-1133.

These dates are not far off from those found in the literature, but
they are earlier than others� guesses. Whether or not the theory
proposed by Richard Borthwick below is accurate or not, Ketel and
Goditha appear to be a generation apart. In my mind this justifies my
theory. I might add if records existed they would have been
disseminated long ago.

If judging from the two messages below, the vagaries of the 29 year
interval appear to have caught up to us in the case of William I and
his son. This must be �corrected� by the records, unfortunately, as
interpreted by others. I consider some soc.genealogy. medieval
contributors to be better than others after reading much of their
writings in the archives. Richard Borthwick has been a valuable
resource.

From: Richard Borthwick (***@cyllene.uwa.edu.au); Subject: Re:
Researching DE BRUS and descendants; Newsgroups:
soc.genealogy.medieval; Date: 1999/08/21

�28 William (I) de LANCASTER, of Kendal. Died Before 29 Sep 1170.
Sanders gives no indication of William's death but Washington does.
[Sanders, I J *English Baronies: a study of their origin and descent
1086-1327* (Oxford, 1963 [1960]) 57; G Washington "The parentage of
William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal" in *Transactions of the
Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaelogical Society* LXII
(1962) 99]

29 NN. Died Before 1153/1156. William (II) witnessed his father's
1120/30 confirmation of Chetell's gifts to St Peter's Hospital, York.
His father's second wife Gundreda married him after 1153 (the year of
her first husband's death). So William (II) was not her son. His
sister, Avice may have been Gundreda's daughter. [CP XII/2:362; G
Washington "The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal" in
*Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian &
Archaelogical Society* LXII (1962) 99]� [FDP Note: the newsgroup, after
much recent discussion, has concluded Avice was not chronologically
Gundreda�s daughter.]

Finally, Source: Richard Borthwick; Subject: Re: Ivo and Lucy Talybois;
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval; Date: 1998/10/02 .

�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].�

I have found two records in Farrer which suggests the family may have
had a record of giving to St. Peter as Richard Borthwick relates above.
This however, appears to be a following gift and not the one William
gave and William II witnessed.

�1154-1189 William son of William de Lancaster gives to the brethren
of the hospital of St. Peter, York, the land called Dockerga, by bounds
(described), in exchange for land in Kirkeby in Kendale which Ketel son
of Eltred gave them and the land of Bartonheved which William, the
donor's father gave them; Cal. Of Chart. R., ii, 442. Farrer, �Records
of Kendale�,Vol I, p. 203.

�1214-1220 Gilbert, son of Roger Fitz-Rainfray confirmed the gift of
Docarhe �of William de Lancaster�� Farrer, �Records of Kendale�,Vol I,
p. 203.

Again, I have suggested a theory for this family backed with �records�
as I have found them. They may be sufficient for some and totally
deficient to others. I have nothing but respect for the intellect and
knowledge for those who contribute to this forum. The archives contain
the wisdom of the ages and are a joy to review.

Respectfully submitted,

Dix Preston
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-27 23:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@aol.com
Again, I have suggested a theory for this family backed with �records�
as I have found them.
What actual evidence is there that Beatrice ever married Eldred?

taf
F***@aol.com
2005-11-28 00:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Dear Taf

I differ to Keats-Rohan's account. I consider her brilliant and leave
to others far more knowledgeable than I to differ with her. I have no
records.

Dix Preston
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-28 01:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by F***@aol.com
Dear Taf
I differ to Keats-Rohan's account. I consider her brilliant and leave
to others far more knowledgeable than I to differ with her. I have no
records.
Neither, it seems, does she - at least none that she cites. This is why
things are such a mess - someone at some point reached this conclusion
apparently because Ketel ended up with Ivo's land, yet we have already
concluded Ketel does not appear to have been son of Beatrice. That
removes the entire basis that such a marriage was suggested to begin
with. We need to go back over the whole thing, starting from scratch,
rather than simply defering to dated statements based on reconstructions
we now suspect to be flawed and trying to fudge things so that they
still work (sort of).

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-27 05:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 11/26/2005 6:51:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
NameA B(ugc) C D E F
Eldred 1018 1001 1088 alive 1086 (Keats-Rohan)
Ketel 1047 1031 1117 alive 1020-1030 (Farrer [F])
Orme 1076 1061 1146 d. ca 1135/40 (Kay Allen)
By the way, I let a certain error slide the first time, but I note that you
repeat this same error again above.
Ketel was NOT alive in 1020-1030. The date should be 1120-1130 if you are
using one author's *guess* at a dating of a certain document. Another author
gives this as 1115-1120. But in either case, I just wanted to make that clear.

Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-27 13:47:51 UTC
Permalink
<<<Ketel was NOT alive in 1020-1030. The date should be 1120-1130 if
you are
using one author's *guess* at a dating of a certain document. Another
author
gives this as 1115-1120. But in either case, I just wanted to make
that clear.

Will Johnson >>>

Will

A grievous typo and thanks for catching it. Following was my source.

�1120-1130; Chetel son of Eltred, by the advice of Christiana his wife
and William his son, and at the instance of archbishop Thurstan, gave
to the monks of St. Mary's, York, the church of Clapaham and one
carucate of land, the church of Kirkebi Kendale, the church of
Heversham, the church of Kirkebi Lonesdale and the lands belonging to
these churches; also the vill called Hotun, the church of Bethum and
land called Hafreb[r]ec, and the church of Burton and one carucate of
land. Witnesses: Archbishop Turstin, Christiana (the donor's) wife.
Archil the seneschal, Ralph Lasne (A sinus), Yvo son of Forne,
Ravenchil son of Suter.From the original (?) D. at Levens; Donsworth's
MS. CLIX, f. 180.� (Farrer Vol II, p 142)

Cheers,

Dix Preston
Ford Mommaerts-Browne
2005-11-28 05:01:10 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid son and heir..Further..


<snip>
Post by F***@aol.com
1120-1130; Chetel son of Eltred, by the advice of Christiana his wife
and William his son, and at the instance of archbishop Thurstan, gave
to the monks of St. Mary's, York, the church of Clapaham and one
carucate of land, the church of Kirkebi Kendale, the church of
Heversham, the church of Kirkebi Lonesdale and the lands belonging to
these churches; also the vill called Hotun, the church of Bethum and
land called Hafreb[r]ec, and the church of Burton and one carucate of
land.
Witnesses: Archbishop Turstin, Christiana (the donor's) wife.
Archil the seneschal, Ralph Lasne (A sinus), Yvo son of Forne,
Ravenchil son of Suter.From the original (?) D. at Levens; Donsworth's
MS. CLIX, f. 180. (Farrer Vol II, p 142)
Are this Archil the seneschal, and/or Yvo, son of Forne, any relation to the
principals, or to others in this thread. The names would certainly seem to
indicate that they came by their position as witnesses by being related. I
simply don't recall seeing them before, but...
Respectfully,
Ford
Post by F***@aol.com
Cheers,
Dix Preston
Mary Zashin
2005-11-28 01:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Ms. Guido, in her Foundations article, says that Gilbert de Lancaster
was son of Ketel. She gives Godith as Gilbert's wife, but Godith is,
obviously, no longer the sister of Ketel. Her ancestry is not
given. This is very different from Keats-Rohan's formulation. Ms.
Guido cites Prescott, pp. 370 -371, and perhaps also some charters,
but she presents these charters in Latin only. I would be interested
in further discussion of this issue by the knowledgeable. Thank
you. Polly Zashin
(6) DE LANCASTRIA, GILBERT: “His son and successor William fitz
Gilbert
of Lancaster was nephew of an Englishman Ketel son of Eldred whose
sister Godith was Gilbert's wife. His father is unknown. William
occurs
from c. 1120-70, G. Washington, 'The parentage of William de
Lancaster,
lord of Kendal'. Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian &
Archaeological Society 62 (1962). Dugdale. Monuslicon Anglicanum,
III, p. 577, no. III; Greenway, Charters of the Honour of Mowbrey
(1972), no. 370; F. Ragg, ‘Charter’s of St Peter's (St Leonard's
Hospital, York', TCWAAS (1909), p. 237” Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS;
by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page 539.
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-28 02:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mary Zashin
Ms. Guido, in her Foundations article, says that Gilbert de Lancaster
was son of Ketel. She gives Godith as Gilbert's wife, but Godith is,
obviously, no longer the sister of Ketel. Her ancestry is not given.
This is very different from Keats-Rohan's formulation. Ms. Guido cites
Prescott, pp. 370 -371, and perhaps also some charters, but she
presents these charters in Latin only. I would be interested in
further discussion of this issue by the knowledgeable. Thank you.
She already explained it yesterday, or perhaps Friday, posting as
ClaudiusI0. To summarize, the chronology seems too long for Godith to
be sister of Ketel - she belongs a generation later. Given that,
MichaelAnne then concludes that the word _avunculus_ (if used precisely,
"maternal uncle") describing Ketel's relationship to William de
Lancaster, on which K-R bases her reconstruction, must not be a precise
description of the true relationship. She suggests that the scribe took
the knowledge that William was _nepos_ of Ketel (which could mean either
grandson or nephew) assumed the incorrect meaning, and translated the
converse relationship as uncle, when grandfather should have been used.

Having said that, don't fall into thr trap of thinking this must be and
either/or situation - that we either have to accept MichaelAnne's or
Katherine Keats-Rohan's solutions. MichaelAnne is right about the
chronology, but Dix Preston suggested an alternative that I had thought
of, as a possibility, as well. This has some things to recommend it,
putting Godith a generation after Ketel as progeny of a late second
marriage, and likewise giving William a descent from Ivo, explaining his
apparent use of the Taillebois name. However, at its heart, it too is
missing critical documentary support. Nor is this the end of the
possibilities. For example, it could be that _avunculus_ is being
extended to refer to great-uncle - that it was actually Gilbert whose
mother was sister of Ketel. Then Godith could be daughter of Beatrice
and Ribald (although the name would be a bit unexpected in that family,
and I don't know whether we have a charter of Liber Vitae that gives us
a complete list of their children). The point is, the only primary
document presents a relationship that is seemingly impossible,
chronologically, and we are left with stretching probability with
respect to generations and accepting it as-is, which Keats-Rohan has
done (although it is unclear whether she was aware of the chronological
difficulties), or coming up with some alternative that does not fit with
the precise language of the document, but better with the chronology, as
is the case with MichaelAnne's and any number of others.

This is why I have suggested, not for the first time, that these
relationships require a general reevaluation, to sort out exactly what
the chronology, land inheritance, and documented relationships seem to
be, rather than simply refering back to what has been speculated,
guessed and slapped together in the distant or recent past.

taf
F***@aol.com
2005-11-28 14:54:43 UTC
Permalink
60. Todd A. Farmerie Nov 27, 9:38 pm wrote:

<<MichaelAnne is right about the chronology, but Dix Preston suggested
an alternative that I had thought of, as a possibility, as well. This
has some things to recommend it,
putting Godith a generation after Ketel as progeny of a late second
marriage, and likewise giving William a descent from Ivo, explaining
his apparent use of the Taillebois name. However, at its heart, it too
is missing critical documentary support.>>

<< Dix Preston suggested an alternative that I had thought of, as a
possibility, as well. >>

Birds of a feather flock together�There is the documentation show
stopper again.<grin>

Cheers

Dix Preston
W***@aol.com
2005-11-28 15:01:47 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/28/2005 6:37:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com writes:

But, unfortunately, not everything can resolved
with ?documentation.?



But in the absence of documentation, you must, as a credible researcher,
give up any firm connection between persons, and merely say "this source says,
without any documentation" or "it is said but suspected" or some other phrase
like that.
Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-28 15:47:01 UTC
Permalink
62. ***@aol.com Nov 28, 10:01 am wrote:

<<But in the absence of documentation, you must, as a credible
researcher,
give up any firm connection between persons, and merely say "this
source says,
without any documentation" or "it is said but suspected" or some other
phrase
like that.
Will Johnson>>

Touche

Cheers,

Dix Preston
C***@aol.com
2005-11-28 17:12:03 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:06:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

Gospatric Fitz Orm, who I estimate was born say 1110.


Dear Doug,

The chronology of this family can be documented.


Gravilda was born before 1075 as her father Gospatric earl of Northumberland
was dead in 1074. Symeon of Durham [Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et
Collectanea, Vol. II, Surtees Society Publication, Andrews & Co., Durham, 1868, pp.
199] records that just before his death Gospatric was visited by two monks from
Jarrow abbey Aldwin and Turgot. Gospatric confessed his sins and died and was
buried in the porch of the church at Melrose. Symeon dates this to 1074 in
Vol. I, pp. 111 where he states that this trip took place from Jarrow to
Melrose. The confession was taken at Ubbanford [Norham]. So the latest birth date
for Gravilda was 1075.

Gospatric son of Orm first comes into documented records in 1150 as he
witnessed a charter of Henry [ son of David I, king of Scotland] with Bishop
Athewold to Holm Cultram Abbey. Gospatric would have been at least 14 when he
witnessed this charter. Gospatric died ca.1179. In 1174 he granted a charter to
Holm Cultram with the consent of his son Thomas [his heir] and another son
Alan which was witnessed at Camberton before Robert de Vallibus who was justice
itinerant in 1174. These dates seem to make it much more likely that
Gospatric was born ca. 1120-1125 which would eliminate Gravilda from being his
mother.

The next documented record of Thomas son of Gospatric occurs in 1185 when he
made an agreement with Adam de Kerkebi (Pipe rolls 31 Henry I). He died
between November 13, 1200 (Charter Rolls, 2 John, m. 27 dorso; Pipe Roll, 2 John)
and 1201(Rot. de Oblations, pp. 157, 179, 194; Westmoreland Pipe Roll, 3
John).

Based on the above data Thomas son of Gospatric would appear to have been
born ca. 1155-1160 making the logical birth date ca. 1120-1125 for Gospatric.

In the eleventh century for a woman to be married and give birth to her
first child at 45-50 is very improbable.

MIchaelAnne
F***@aol.com
2005-11-28 19:51:33 UTC
Permalink
30. Douglas Richardson Nov 27, 10:02 pm wrote:

<<"Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre ejus." [Reference:
James
Wilson, Register of the Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915):
60-61].

Ms. Guido translated this to read "his wife Elgiva and his mother
Ebrea." (Ms. Guido's words). However, as we have learned from a
recent discussion regarding a lawsuit involving the Lacy and Galloway
families, if Gospatric's mother had really been Ebrea, the list of
witnesses should have read as following:

Elgiva uxore ipsius Gospatricii, Ebrea matre suus."

Instead we find the word "ejus" (not "suus") employed in the original,
which means that Ebrea was Elgiva's mother, not Gospatric's. The word
"ejus" (her) in the original text refers back to Elgiva, not Gospatric.

If Ebrea was Gospatric's mother, the word "suus" (his) would have been

used to refer back to Gospatric, he being the author of the charter in
question.

In the second charter, we find that Gospatric Fitz Orm refers to Ebrea
as "matre mea" (my mother) [Reference: James Wilson, Register of the
Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 63-64]. However, we know

from other instances in medieval records that a man may refer to either

his mother, step-mother, or mother-in-law as "my mother." So the term
"my mother" in medieval records is vague in and of its own nature.>>

DOUGLAS HAS IT EXACTLY CORRECT.

In my message 42. ***@aol.com Nov 26, 4:50 pm; Subject: Re:
Gilbert fitzReinfrid son and heir..Further.. I presented a Theory of
the descendants of Eldred. In this construct, I had Gospatric FitzOrm
as follows:

Descendants of Eldred of Northumbria

1. Eldred/Etheldred of Northumbria (approx b. 1018) alive 1086 d. bef
1093 [Keats-Rohan p. 1121] m. (1) Aldgytha/ Adgitha [ref 1] Eldred aka
Etret aka Ughtret and others
2. Ketel FitzEldred (approx b. 1047) alive 1020-1030 [ref 2] m.
Christiana [ref 2]
3. Orme FitzKetel (approx b. 1076) d. ca 1135/40 [Ref 3] m. Gunhilda
FitzGospatric est b. 1072; dau Gospatric I the Earl d. 1074/5
[Keats-Rohan, p.221]
4. Gospatric FitzOrme (b. 1100-1110 d. 1179 [literature] m. Egilina de
Engaine [traded for Workington with cousin William de Lancaster I]

In my message 56. ***@aol.com Nov 27, 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Gilbert
fitzReinfrid son and heir..Further.. I offered a chronology scenario
for this family.
I have not read Ms Guido?s paper in _Foundations_ but I gather from
this thread my chronology and my line of descent differs from hers.

In her message 37. ***@aol.com Nov 28, 12:12 pm Subject: Re:
Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother, Gravelda of Dunbar she writes:

<<Gravilda was born before 1075 as her father Gospatric earl of
Northumberland
was dead in 1074. Symeon of Durham [Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et
Collectanea, Vol. II, Surtees Society Publication, Andrews & Co.,
Durham, 1868, pp.
199] records that just before his death Gospatric was visited by two
monks from
Jarrow abbey Aldwin and Turgot. Gospatric confessed his sins and died
and was
buried in the porch of the church at Melrose. Symeon dates this to
1074 in
Vol. I, pp. 111 where he states that this trip took place from Jarrow
to
Melrose. The confession was taken at Ubbanford [Norham]. So the
latest birth date
for Gravilda was 1075.>>

This exactly what I documented in my second message. However, she leaps
45 years in accounting for Gospatric?s birth. I fear she has jumped a
generation to make a fit with her Eberia as mother of Gospatric theory.

<<These dates seem to make it much more likely that Gospatric was born
ca. 1120-1125 which would eliminate Gravilda from being his mother.>>

<<Based on the above data Thomas son of Gospatric would appear to have
been
born ca. 1155-1160 making the logical birth date ca. 1120-1125 for
Gospatric.>>

In my construct Gospatric was born nominally ca1100, and his son Thomas
ca 1129 followed by Patric de Culwen ca 1158.

In my research I have Gospatric FitzOrme married to Egilina de Engaine
daughter of Ibria D'Estrivers and Ranulf D'Engaine. I present no
documentation other than Internet findings which place Egilina?s birth
between 1100-1110 which I find consistent with my Gospatric FitzOrme
data.

I find all the messages in this thread provide plenty of
?documentation? but demonstrate a lot of confusion with individuals
playing ?my record is better than your record.? One needs to make a
serious look at chronology which I have humbly attempted to do.

I go back to Douglas? message where he has it correct. Elgiva/Egilina,
I wish those scribes would write correctly, is clearly Gospatric?s wife
and Ebrea/Ibria is clearly his mother-in-law. Now I will concede that
the widow Ibria in her old age may have married Gospatric as his second
wife, but had no issue, and it is not unreasonable that a mother and
daughter would have a close relationship with a father and son.

I offer some additional ?documentation? for Gospatric FitzOrme ;



(1) FILIUS ORM, GOSPATRIC

?Son of Orm, son of Chetel son of Eldred, of Workington, Cumberland.
Pipe Roll 4 Henry II, 120-cl; Pipe Roll 9 Henry II, 10-cl; Pipe Roll 10
Henry II, 2-cl; Pipe Roll 11 Henry II, 54-cl; Pipe Roll 12 Henry II,
88-cl;? Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page #
not copied

(2) ?1157 ?Gospatric son of Orm is with the king's court at Woodstock.
Coucher of Furness, pait i, 344.? Source: Farrer, ?Records of Kendale?,
Vol II, page 298

(3) ?1175 ?Gospatric son of Orm renders account of 20 marks to the
Crown for a default. Pipe Roll, 21 Henry n, p. 178.? Source: Farrer,
?Records of Kendale?, Vol II, p 298

(4) ?1176 ?Gospatric son of Orm accounts for an a mercement of 500
marks for the surrender of the king's castle of Appeibi to the king of
Scots. Pipe Roll, 22 Henry n, 119.? Source: Farrer, ?Records of
Kendale?, Vol II, p 298

Respectfully,

Dix Preston
F***@aol.com
2005-11-28 20:26:02 UTC
Permalink
In my last message I made a mistake. In the portion as follows

<< go back to Douglas? message where he has it correct. Elgiva/Egilina,

I wish those scribes would write correctly, is clearly Gospatric?s wife

and Ebrea/Ibria is clearly his mother-in-law. Now I will concede that
the widow Ibria in her old age may have married Gospatric as his second

wife, but had no issue, and it is not unreasonable that a mother and
daughter would have a close relationship with a father and son.>>

Should have read: Ibria in her old age may have married Orme as his
second wife.

Regrets,

Dix Preston
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-28 20:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dix ~

Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers may have married (2nd) Orm Fitz Ketel as you
suggest, but the standard interpretation of the charter evidence we
have discussed is that Ibrea was the mother of Gospatrick Fitz Orm's
wife, Egliva. I tend toward the standard interpretation. Whichever is
correct, Ibrea can not have been Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother, as Ibrea
was still married to her known husband, Ranulph Engaine, some years
after Gospatric Fitz Orm was born. Also, the evidence shows that
Gospatric Fitz Orm inherited the maritagium of Gravelda of Dunbar,
which fact indicates that Gravelda (and no one else) was Gospatric Fitz
Orm's mother.

In medieval research, the passage of lands and chronology are paramount
to correctly understanding the scraps of evidence which have survived
the mists of time.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: royalancestry.net
Post by F***@aol.com
In my last message I made a mistake. In the portion as follows
<< go back to Douglas? message where he has it correct. Elgiva/Egilina,
I wish those scribes would write correctly, is clearly Gospatric?s wife
and Ebrea/Ibria is clearly his mother-in-law. Now I will concede that
the widow Ibria in her old age may have married Gospatric as his second
wife, but had no issue, and it is not unreasonable that a mother and
daughter would have a close relationship with a father and son.>>
Should have read: Ibria in her old age may have married Orme as his
second wife.
Regrets,
Dix Preston
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-29 06:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Dix ~
Ibrea (or Ybri) de Trevers may have married (2nd) Orm Fitz Ketel as you
suggest, but the standard interpretation of the charter evidence we
have discussed is that Ibrea was the mother of Gospatrick Fitz Orm's
wife, Egliva.
This does not become any more true just because you keep repeating it.
Post by Douglas Richardson
I tend toward the standard interpretation.
There is a surprise.

Whichever is
Post by Douglas Richardson
correct, Ibrea can not have been Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother, as Ibrea
was still married to her known husband, Ranulph Engaine, some years
after Gospatric Fitz Orm was born.
That is only the case IF your document is correctly dated, which has
been questioned AND IF the Ibrea of MichaelAnne's document is the same
as Ibrea de Trevers. This is utterly worthless if either of these are
not true.
Post by Douglas Richardson
Also, the evidence shows that
Gospatric Fitz Orm inherited the maritagium of Gravelda of Dunbar,
which fact indicates that Gravelda (and no one else) was Gospatric Fitz
Orm's mother.
The evidence shows that Gospatric later held land that she had brought
to Orm. The evidence does not document inheritance. Further, the
chronology militates against it.
Post by Douglas Richardson
In medieval research, the passage of lands and chronology are paramount
to correctly understanding the scraps of evidence which have survived
the mists of time.
It is the scraps that are paramount. The passage of lands, chronology,
onomastics, etc. are secondary. As to chronology, it only seems to be
paramount in your eyes if it agrees with you. The fact that it would
seem to make Gunnilda in her late 30s before she has her first child you
seem to be willing to overlook. Paramount unless it suits you
otherwise, it seems.

taf
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-29 07:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
The evidence shows that Gospatric later held land that she had brought
to Orm. The evidence does not document inheritance. Further, the
chronology militates against it.
taf
The passage of the lands which formed Gravelda of Dunbars' maritagium
to Gospatric Fitz Orm is excellent evidence that Gospatric was
Gravelda's son. Frankly, I wished such evidence existed for every
medieval problem we discussed here on the newsgroup. It would make
things much easier for all of us. As it stands, this one is a walk in
the park.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
m***@btinternet.com
2005-11-29 09:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
The evidence shows that Gospatric later held land that she had brought
to Orm. The evidence does not document inheritance. Further, the
chronology militates against it.
taf
The passage of the lands which formed Gravelda of Dunbars' maritagium
to Gospatric Fitz Orm is excellent evidence that Gospatric was
Gravelda's son. Frankly, I wished such evidence existed for every
medieval problem we discussed here on the newsgroup. It would make
things much easier for all of us. As it stands, this one is a walk in
the park.
The problem with walks in the park is that you can get mugged...
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-28 20:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Dear MichaelAnne ~

As I showed in earlier posts, Ebrea de Trevers' husband, Ranulph
Engaine, was evidently living after 1122, when they gave propety in
Henrickby (or Herriby) to Carlisle Priory. This dating makes it
virtually impossible for Ebrea de Trevers to be Gospatric Fitz Orm's
mother, as I will demonstrate below.

We know that Gospatric Fitz Orm issued a charter to St. Bees Priory
sometime in the period, 1138-1157, which charter was witnessed by his
first cousin, Alan Fitz Waltheof, his brothers-in-law, William and
Gilbert Engaine, his wife Elgiva, his mother-in-law, Ebrea [de
Trevers], and his three sons, Thomas, Adam, and Robert [Reference:
Register of the Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 60-61].

We can date the charter as being 1138-1157, as Alan Fitz Waltheof's
father, Waltheof Fitz Gospatrick, died in 1138, and William Engaine
died in 1157 [References: Sanders, English Baronies (1960): 23;
Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants (2002): 246]. If we assume that
Gospatric Fitz Orm's sons were of sufficient age to witness the
charter, it means that Thomas his eldest son was approximately age 20
in or before 1157, or before in or before 1137. Yet, incredibly, you
have Thomas being born a full generation later at ca. 1155-1160.
Likewise, we know from other records, that Thomas Fitz Gospatric'
son-in-law, William de Furness (or Fleming), was of age before 1164.
Again, I find it incredible that you have Thomas Fitz Gospatric being
the same approximate age as his son-in-law.

Elsewhere, I've determined that Thomas, son of Gospatrick Fitz Orm, had
a grandson, Michael de Furness, who was aged 6 in 1204, or born about
1198. Michael de Furness would, of course, be a great-grandson of
Gospatrick Fitz Orm. Using the 85 year rule of thumb for three
generations which I have employed in earlier posts, if we subtract 85
years from 1198, we obtain an estimated birthdate for Gospatric Fitz
Orm of circa 1113. We get a similar corresponding result in
chronology for his son, Thomas Fitz Gospatric, when we subtract 85
years from the approximate birthdate of his great-grandson, William de
Furness, who I believe was born c. 1215-1219. 85 years substracted
from c. 1215-1219 indicates an estimated birthdate of 1130/1134 for
Thomas Fitz Gospatric.

Using these records, the following chronology can be constructed which
harmonizes well with the facts as we have them:

1. Gravelda (or Gurwelda, Gimilda) of Dunbar, born before 1075, minor
and unmarried at her father's death in 1075. She married Orm Fitz
Ketel, who I believe was an adult in 1094.

2. Gospatric Fitz Orm, born say 1110, died c. 1177. He married Egliva
Engaine, daughter of Ranulph Engaine (living after 1122) and Ibrea (or
Ybri) de Trevers.

3. Thomas Fitz Gospatric, born say 1130/5, died 1201, married Grace
_____.

4. Aline Fitz Thomas, born say 1160/5, living 1219, married William de
Furness (or Fleming), he was of age before 1164.

5. Michael de Furness, born about 1198 (aged 6 in 1204), died 1230/34.

6. William de Furness, born c. 1215/1219 (allegedly aged 14 at his
father's death), living 1262.

I'm sure that more evidence can be provided to show that Gospatric Fitz
Orm was born in or before 1110. For now, I think the above is
sufficient to prove that the theory you have presented in your recent
Foundations article regarding Gospatric Fitz Orm's maternity is
untenable for three reasons: (1) Passage of lands; (2) Onomastic
evidence; and most basic of all, (3) chronology. Also, your
interpretation of the Latin phrase "matre ejus" can not be sustained.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by C***@aol.com
In a message dated 11/28/2005 2:06:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Gospatric Fitz Orm, who I estimate was born say 1110.
Dear Doug,
The chronology of this family can be documented.
Gravilda was born before 1075 as her father Gospatric earl of Northumberland
was dead in 1074. Symeon of Durham [Symeonis Dunelmensis Opera et
Collectanea, Vol. II, Surtees Society Publication, Andrews & Co., Durham, 1868, pp.
199] records that just before his death Gospatric was visited by two monks from
Jarrow abbey Aldwin and Turgot. Gospatric confessed his sins and died and was
buried in the porch of the church at Melrose. Symeon dates this to 1074 in
Vol. I, pp. 111 where he states that this trip took place from Jarrow to
Melrose. The confession was taken at Ubbanford [Norham]. So the latest birth date
for Gravilda was 1075.
Gospatric son of Orm first comes into documented records in 1150 as he
witnessed a charter of Henry [ son of David I, king of Scotland] with Bishop
Athewold to Holm Cultram Abbey. Gospatric would have been at least 14 when he
witnessed this charter. Gospatric died ca.1179. In 1174 he granted a charter to
Holm Cultram with the consent of his son Thomas [his heir] and another son
Alan which was witnessed at Camberton before Robert de Vallibus who was justice
itinerant in 1174. These dates seem to make it much more likely that
Gospatric was born ca. 1120-1125 which would eliminate Gravilda from being his
mother.
The next documented record of Thomas son of Gospatric occurs in 1185 when he
made an agreement with Adam de Kerkebi (Pipe rolls 31 Henry I). He died
between November 13, 1200 (Charter Rolls, 2 John, m. 27 dorso; Pipe Roll, 2 John)
and 1201(Rot. de Oblations, pp. 157, 179, 194; Westmoreland Pipe Roll, 3
John).
Based on the above data Thomas son of Gospatric would appear to have been
born ca. 1155-1160 making the logical birth date ca. 1120-1125 for Gospatric.
In the eleventh century for a woman to be married and give birth to her
first child at 45-50 is very improbable.
MIchaelAnne
F***@aol.com
2005-11-28 20:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Douglas:

You were writing this post as I was writing mine. I agree completely
with your interpretation in this matter and the line you present
although my chronolgy is about 5 years before yours. I salute you.

Regards,

Dix Preston
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-28 20:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for your kind words, Dix. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
Post by F***@aol.com
You were writing this post as I was writing mine. I agree completely
with your interpretation in this matter and the line you present
although my chronolgy is about 5 years before yours. I salute you.
Regards,
Dix Preston
Chris Phillips
2005-11-28 21:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
I'm sure that more evidence can be provided to show that Gospatric Fitz
Orm was born in or before 1110. For now, I think the above is
sufficient to prove that the theory you have presented in your recent
Foundations article regarding Gospatric Fitz Orm's maternity is
untenable for three reasons: (1) Passage of lands; (2) Onomastic
evidence; and most basic of all, (3) chronology. Also, your
interpretation of the Latin phrase "matre ejus" can not be sustained.
I think it is important to be clear about what MichaelAnne Guido claims to
have proved, and what she doesn't.

What she does is to produce two charters in which Gospatric's mother
("mater") is named as Ebrea. I cannot understand how you can argue that it
is Elgiva's mother who is being described, when the second charter of
Gospatric describes her as "Ebrea matre mea". That is absolutely
unambiguous, isn't it? If you are actually arguing that "mater" in this
context is likely to mean "mother in law", I agree with Nat Taylor that it
would be helpful if you could produce a comparable example.

The question of Ebrea's parentage is a separate one, and MichaelAnne herself
describes her suggestion as to Ebrea's identity as "speculation". Perhaps it
can be demonstrated that this suggestion is impossible on chronological
grounds, but is it really safe to assume that Ranulph's grant to Carlisle
could not have taken place until 1122? VCH Cumberland vol. 2 says this about
the foundation of Carlisle Priory:

"We naturally look to Carlisle for the earliest evidence of ecclesiastical
life and movement in the new province which had been added to the English
kingdom in 1092. It has been pointed out that very early in his reign, most
probably in 1102, Henry I. granted a site within the city for the purpose of
founding a religious establishment. For various reasons already stated,
little else seems to have been done till after the political changes of
1120-2, when Ranulf Meschin, the civil ruler, left the district and the king
took it into his own hand. From this date onward a vigorous policy was
carried on for its ecclesiastical development. How much progress had been
made with the building of the church or the religious organization of the
city during Ranulf's consulate we cannot tell. ..."

In any case, whatever the truth about Ebrea's parentage, there is clearly no
chronological argument against Gospatric's mother bearing this name. Indeed,
even your own chronology doesn't seem particularly favourable for
Gravelda/Gunnilda to be Gospatric's mother. You estimate Gospatric's birth
at about 1113. Even if she were born posthumously, this would have her
giving birth to Gospatric at the age of 38. More likely she would be at
least 40. That is extremely late if Gospatric is supposed to be her eldest
son.

As I said before, I agree the passage of land would Gospatric was
Gravelda's/Gunnilda's son in the absence of evidence to the contrary (though
I think the chronology would make us think twice). I don't see how it can
prevail against the direct evidence of the charters.

And as Todd Farmerie pointed out, the onomastic evidence might have some
force if Gospatric was a very rare name in that time and place. But it
wasn't, was it?

Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
2005-11-28 21:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
I'm sure that more evidence can be provided to show that Gospatric Fitz
Orm was born in or before 1110. For now, I think the above is
sufficient to prove that the theory you have presented in your recent
Foundations article regarding Gospatric Fitz Orm's maternity is
untenable for three reasons: (1) Passage of lands; (2) Onomastic
evidence; and most basic of all, (3) chronology. Also, your
interpretation of the Latin phrase "matre ejus" can not be sustained.
I think it is important to be clear about what MichaelAnne Guido claims to
have proved, and what she doesn't.

What she does is to produce two charters in which Gospatric's mother
("mater") is named as Ebrea. I cannot understand how you can argue that it
is Elgiva's mother who is being described, when the second charter of
Gospatric describes her as "Ebrea matre mea". That is absolutely
unambiguous, isn't it? If you are actually arguing that "mater" in this
context is likely to mean "mother in law", I agree with Nat Taylor that it
would be helpful if you could produce a comparable example.

The question of Ebrea's parentage is a separate one, and MichaelAnne herself
describes her suggestion as to Ebrea's identity as "speculation". Perhaps it
can be demonstrated that this suggestion is impossible on chronological
grounds, but is it really safe to assume that Ranulph's grant to Carlisle
could not have taken place until 1122? VCH Cumberland vol. 2 says this about
the foundation of Carlisle Priory:

"We naturally look to Carlisle for the earliest evidence of ecclesiastical
life and movement in the new province which had been added to the English
kingdom in 1092. It has been pointed out that very early in his reign, most
probably in 1102, Henry I. granted a site within the city for the purpose of
founding a religious establishment. For various reasons already stated,
little else seems to have been done till after the political changes of
1120-2, when Ranulf Meschin, the civil ruler, left the district and the king
took it into his own hand. From this date onward a vigorous policy was
carried on for its ecclesiastical development. How much progress had been
made with the building of the church or the religious organization of the
city during Ranulf's consulate we cannot tell. ..."

In any case, whatever the truth about Ebrea's parentage, there is clearly no
chronological argument against Gospatric's mother bearing this name. Indeed,
even your own chronology doesn't seem particularly favourable for
Gravelda/Gunnilda to be Gospatric's mother. You estimate Gospatric's birth
at about 1113. Even if she were born posthumously, this would have her
giving birth to Gospatric at the age of 38. More likely she would be at
least 40. That is extremely late if Gospatric is supposed to be her eldest
son.

As I said before, I agree the passage of land would Gospatric was
Gravelda's/Gunnilda's son in the absence of evidence to the contrary (though
I think the chronology would make us think twice). I don't see how it can
prevail against the direct evidence of the charters.

And as Todd Farmerie pointed out, the onomastic evidence might have some
force if Gospatric was a very rare name in that time and place. But it
wasn't, was it?

Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-29 02:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

As a further followup to my earlier posts, I had the opportunity today
of checking a few sources today which relate to the early history of
Cumberland.

Regarding my estimated birthdate of c. 1110 for Gospatric Fitz Orm, I
have a couple of additional comments to add to the discussion. In my
earlier post, I dated one of the charters of Gospatric Fitz Orm to St.
Bees Priory as being in the period, 1138-1157. I find elsewhere that
Gospatric Fitz Orm and William Engaine both witnessed a charter dated
c. 1150 to Holm Cultram issued by Earl Henry son of King David I of
Scotland [Reference: Grainger and Collingwood, The Register and Records
of Holm Cultram, 1929, pp. 91-92]. The charter was also witnessed by
Athelwold, Bishop of Carlisle, who held that position from 1133-1156.
Inasmuch as Gospatric Fitz Orm and William Engaine are associated
together in this charter which is dated c. 1150, I think a date of c.
1150 is also reasonable to assign to Gospatric's own charter to St.
Bees Priory. As indicated earlier, the St. Bees charter was witnessed
by William Engaine and by Gospatric Fitz Own's own sons, Thomas, Adam,
and Robert. If so, I think we can likewise safely assign a revised
birth date of no later than c. 1130 to Gospatric's eldest son, Thomas.

As far as Gospatric Fitz Orm's own birthdate is concerned, I find that
in a pedigree chart of the Fitz Orm family in Transactions of the
Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq. & Arch. Soc.n.s. 14, pg. 432, Gospatric
Fitz Orm is assigned a birthdate of c. 1100. However, unless other
evidence is forthcoming, I'm prepared to accept a birthdate of c.
1105-1110 for Gospatric Fitz Orm himself, based on the revision of
Gospatric's son, Thomas' birthdate as being c. 1130.

With respect to Robert Fitz Orm, who Ms. Guido assigns as a brother to
Gospatric Fitz Orm, Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq.
& Arch. Soc.n.s. 14, pg. 3 states "There does not seem to be one
[charter] existing in which he is actually given as "fratre meo" by
Gospatrick, but we have not all of Gospatrick's charters, and therefore
not all the possible and usual varieties of description." In other
words, the evidence is lacking to prove that Robert Fitz Orm was the
brother of Gospatric Fitz Orm. For now, I'm content to assign
Gospatric Fitz Orm only one brother, Michael, who is specifically
called Gospatric's brother in one of Gospatric's charters to Wetheral
Priory [Reference: J.E. Precott, Registry of the Priory of Wetheral
(1897), pg. 249]. Beyond that I think is pressing the evidence.

With respect to the first St. Bees charter in which Ebrea occurs as
witness for Gospatric Fitz Orm, I find that Rev. Frederick W. Ragg in
his article, "De Culwen," has translated the witness list of this
charter to read "Eglina wife of him, Gospatrik, Ebrea her mother."
[Reference: Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq. & Arch.
Soc.n.s. 14, pg. 383]. So we find another party who has translated
the witness list to mean that Ebrea was Gospatric Fitz Orm's wife's
mother, not his own mother. I believe Rev. Ragg has translated this
Latin passage correctly.

With respect to the document known as "Chronicon Cumbrie" which records
that Gospatric Fitz Orm's father, Orm Fitz Ketel, was granted various
manors in marriage with Gravelda, sister of Waltheof son of Earl
Gospatric, I find that there have been three (not two) versions of this
document in print, they being Monasticon Anglicanum, 3: 584, Register
of St. Bees, pp. 530-533, and Register of the Priory of Wetheral.
Among other statements made in this document, it is alleged that
Waltheof son of Earl Gospatric gave Wigton to Odard de Logis, alias
Odard the Sheriff. This land grant is confirmed by evidence presented
in Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq. & Arch. Soc.n.s.
27, pg. 43. The document also states that Alan Fitz Waltheof gave
Torpenhow with its advowson to Uchtred Fitz Fergus, lord of Galloway,
with "Gornella" his sister. This statement is likewise confirmed by
Hedley, Northumberland Families, pg. 241, who states that Uchtred Fitz
Fergus and Gunnilda his wife gave the church of Torpenhow to the canons
of Holy Rood at Edinburgh, citing Liber Cartaram Sanctae Crucis,
Bannatyne Club, pp. 19-20. So two statements made in the Chronicon
Cumbie are verified as being accurate.

Regarding Gravelda of Dunbar's parentage, it is noted in at least two
sources that neither she or her son, Gospatric Fitz Orm, nor two of her
younger sisters shared in the inheritance of the family estates on the
death of Gravelda's nephew, Alan Fitz Waltheof. Alan Fitz Waltheof was
living in 1139, and is thought to have been alive as late as 1150. He
was certainly dead before 1157. Rather, the entire inheritance went to
Alan Fitz Waltheof's first cousin, William Fitz Duncan (died 1157), who
was the son of Etheldreda, the sister of Alan's father, Waltheof.
Hedley, Northumberland Families, pg. 241, assumes that Waltheof's
sister, Etheldreda, was Waltheof's sole legitimate sister, and that
Waltheof's two brothers, Gospatric and Dolfin, were both illegitimate.
He also suspects that Gravelda and her two sisters, Octreda and
Matilla, were also illegitimate. However, Transactions of the
Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq. & Arch. Soc.n.s. 29, pp. 70-71 has a
different take regarding the family inheritance. It states "Descent
was traced from Waldeve's son, Alan ... and consequently the nearest
heir male of the whole blood was Etheldred's son, William [Fitz
Duncan]." In other words, Etheldreda's son, William Fitz Duncan,
inherited Alan Fitz Waltheof's estates, he being the heir of the whole
blood, to the exclusion to Alan Fitz Waltheof's other uncles and aunts
(including Gravelda), who were heirs of the half-blood. The author
adds the following explanatory comment: "The rules of descent prevalent
at that period differed from those in force at the present day and are
stated in Blackstone's Commentaries, edit. Christian, 1799, vol. ii,
pg. 223." I assume this passage in Blackstone concerns itself with the
laws relating to inheritance of the full blood, to the exclusion of
heirs of the half-blood. If it can be shown that this custom prevailed
in this time period, then I think a good case could be made that
Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother, Gravelda, was half-sister to Waltheof and
Etheldreda, not their full-sister.

Regarding the gift of Ranulph Engaine and his wife, Ibrea de Trevers,
to Carlisle Priory, it seems virtually certain that Burns and
Nicholson must have seen a transcript of their original charter to
Carlisle Priory, as I find that the published transcript of King Henry
II's confirmation charter states only that this grant was the gift of
"Ranulph Engaine and his heir," not Ranulph Engaine and his wife,
Ibrea, as Burns and Nicholson state. Also the confirmation charter of
King Henry II makes no mention of Hugh de Morville's charter which
confirmed Ranulph and Ibrea's grant to Carlisle, which second charter
is mentioned by Burns and Nicholson. For the confirmation charter of
King Henry II of various gifts to Carlisle Priory, see Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 144. The fact that Ranulph and
Ibrea's son, William, joined them in the grant to Carlisle Priory
indicates that William was of the sufficient age to witness and consent
to his parents' charter. Once again, we have an indication which makes
it virtually impossible for Ibrea de Trevers to be the mother of
Gospatrick Fitz Orm. For mention of other grants to Wetheral Priory by
Ranulph Engaine, his wife, Ibrea (or Ybri), and their son and heir,
William, see Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 3 (1821): 591-592.

At this point, I'd very much like to hear from someone as to what Dr.
Katherine Keats-Rohan has to say about these people in her book,
Domesday Descendants. If someone has a copy of Keats-Rohan's book, I'd
appreciate it greatly if they would post the information regarding
these families here on the newsgroup. I believe it's time we heard
from Dr. Keats-Rohan.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
butlergrt
2005-11-29 04:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Douglas,
Gospatric 1st Earl of Northumberlands dau. Ethelreda married Duncan II
whose son William fitzDuncan of Skipton and Earl of Moray mar. Alice
Meschines dau of William Meschines of Copeland
William fitzDuncans daughter Cecily married Gilluam "le Gros" Count of
Aumale Lord of Holderness(come back to this further down)

(Gos)patrick 5th Earl of Dunbar married Ada daughter of William the Lion
King of Scotland.

Orm son of Ketel Lord of Atterdalemarried the daughter of gospatrick Earl
of Northumberland whos father was Mal;dred of fAtterdale whose brother was
duncan I, King of the Scots his great Uncle and Gospatric gg grandson
Married Ada(above)
It is no small wonder that Henry II fined him 500 marks for surrending
castle Appleby without a fight, besides being quite old this was his
family. Henry II piope roll, everwicher(Yorkshire) 1176

In the national archives in the History of Cumberland Vol. II, The Abbey
of Calden, in the barony of copeland, it lists Ranulph Meschines who
deeded land 10 jan. 1134 and his brother William Meschines the priori of
Bees. Ranulph and brother-in-law William son of Duncan confirm a land
grant to the abbey by Cecily (of above) along with Beatrice de Molle who
bestowed to the monks 5 oxgangs in Little Gilcrux and 1/4 of the Mill in
Great Gilcrux confirmed by Adam son of Uchtred her Uncle, as the gift of
William, his nephew as the charter of said William son of Liolf de Molle
testified".
I thought you might find this added history interesting if you were not
aware of it.
Best
Emmett L. Butler
Chris Phillips
2005-11-29 09:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
With respect to the first St. Bees charter in which Ebrea occurs as
witness for Gospatric Fitz Orm, I find that Rev. Frederick W. Ragg in
his article, "De Culwen," has translated the witness list of this
charter to read "Eglina wife of him, Gospatrik, Ebrea her mother."
[Reference: Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq. & Arch.
Soc.n.s. 14, pg. 383]. So we find another party who has translated
the witness list to mean that Ebrea was Gospatric Fitz Orm's wife's
mother, not his own mother. I believe Rev. Ragg has translated this
Latin passage correctly.
For what it's worth, J. F. Curwen, in "A History of the Ancient House of
Curwen ..." (1928), translates it in the same way. But it's hardly
surprising they should assume Ebrea was Eglina/Elgiva's mother, as both of
them presumably believed that Gospatric's mother was Gravelda/Gunnilda, and
no one is disputing that "her mother" is a correct - and probably the
natural - translation of "matre ejus".

I don't see the point of continuing to analyse the meaning of "ejus" here,
when we have a second charter of Gospatric in which the wording is "Egeliva
uxore mea, Ebrea matre mea", which doesn't involve any ambiguity. And I
don't believe"mater" here means mother-in-law. Perhaps the word could have
been used loosely to mean mother-in-law, but in this context, where Egeliva,
the supposed daughter, is the last person who has been mentioned, it would
surely have been far more natural - as well as accurate - to write "Egeliva
uxore mea, Ebrea matre ejus".

If that second charter were spurious, things would be very different, but if
it is genuine I don't see any getting round it.

Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson
2005-11-29 06:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the death date of Gospatric Fitz Maldred, Earl of Dunbar,
Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 504 (sub Dunbar) gives the following
information:

"Being, however, deprived of that post in Oct. or Nov. 1072, he fled to
Scotland, receiving from Malcolm III "Dunbar with the adjacent lands in
Lothian." He died probably about 1075, and most likely is the
"Gospatricus Comes" whose monument was at Durham. He is stated in
Hoveden to have died and been buried at Ubbanford [i.e., Norham], not
long after his flight to Scotland." END OF QUOTE

This information given above essentially comes from Roger de Hoveden 1
(Rolls Ser. 51) (1868): 59, which source can be viewed online on the
gallica website at the following weblink:

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-50281&M=pagination&Y=Image

Roger de Hoveden gives no date for the death of Gospatric, except to
say it took place "not long after his flight to Scotland." Beyond the
above details, Hoveden states that Gospatric had three sons, Dolfin,
Waltheof, and Gospatric.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
J***@aol.com
2005-11-28 22:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Dear Douglas and Michael Anne,
You both make good arguments
for supposing that Gospatric son of Orme `s mother was In Douglas` case
Gravelda of Dunbar and in Michael Anne`s case Ebrea. You have both used primary
records to good effect, but could Gravelda have been a daughter of Gospatric II
rather than Gospatric I ?

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Main
Todd A. Farmerie
2005-11-29 07:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@aol.com
Dear Douglas and Michael Anne,
You both make good arguments
for supposing that Gospatric son of Orme `s mother was In Douglas` case
Gravelda of Dunbar and in Michael Anne`s case Ebrea. You have both used primary
records to good effect, but could Gravelda have been a daughter of Gospatric II
rather than Gospatric I ?
She is identified as sister of Waltheof, so the intended father is clear.

taf
W***@aol.com
2005-11-28 22:53:37 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/05 6:51:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< Column C shows Ancestral file (submitted by Doris Rock) birth dates;
* reflects a 26 year b. to b. separation which was Medieval/ History
Unit policy for this period. >>

Which, Unit, should be taken out and shot, for giving us another hundred
years of people insisting on dates which were made-up to begin with.
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-11-28 23:36:47 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/26/05 6:36:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< (10) ?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, there is not
indication, to my mind, that this person was
William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendall who d 1170

Thanks
Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-29 12:03:59 UTC
Permalink
89. ***@aol.com Nov 28, 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid
son and heir..Further.. Will Johnson wrote:

<< (10) ?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, there is
not
indication, to my mind, that this person was
William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendall who d 1170 >>

Dear Will:

My (10) statement came from Richard Borthwick�s message which I cite.
He made it in two messages which I cite, one with If in front of this
statement and the above without the If.

Would you please post the confirmation as you apparently have access to
it.
From your message it appears there may be some confusion. The father in
Borthwick�s message is William de Lancaster I and the William as the
witness is William de Lancaster II. William II was not the son of
William I�s second wife m. as a widow [Gundred de Warren [Keats-Rohan,
p. 539] widow of Roger, Earl of Warwick d. 1153] and judging from the
recent discussion on the newsgroup neither was daughter Avice.

Respectfully,

Dix Preston
W***@aol.com
2005-11-29 01:05:17 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/27/05 3:51:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< It appears Hawsie/Helewise de Lancaster was delivered to ward ship in 1084
at her fathers death and given in marriage in 1189. If she was 20 at
marriage, then born 1169. Applying our 29 year average interval makes her father
William de Lancaster II approx b. 1140 and his father approx b. 1111. Continuing
to Goditha approx b. 1082 and on to Beatrice approx b. 1053 and lastly to Ivo
approx b. 1024. If she were 15 at her marriage, then Beatrice was approx b.
1058 and Ivo 1029. So she is bracketed between 1053 and 1058 plus or minus ??? >>

Sorry but you cannot apply an averaging technique to identify every possible
interval.
My own technique will hopefully demonstrate this.

Hawise was given in marriage by 1189.
She was the daughter of William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendal and Hawise
(Helawise) of Stuteville

This Helawise was married twice more to Hugh de Morville d 1202 and to
William FitzRanulph de Greystoke d 1209
By this last husband she was mother to Thomas de Greystoke b 1202/10. at
which time Helawise could not have been older then 47 thus b aft 1154

Hawise her daughter had to be born by 1185 since her father died in 1184.
However she could not have been born earlier than 1168 when her own mother, by
our reasoning in the last paragraph could have been no more then 13.

Thus Helewise of Stuteville was born 1155/68. And Hawise of Lancaster
1168/85.

Now William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendel d 1184 had to be at least 17 at the
birth of his daughter and so could not have been born later than 1168. His
own mother Gundred de Warenne did not marry William Lord of Kendel until at
least 1153 when her prior husband had died. Therefore William's own birth is
bound by 1153/68

My chronology *is* possible. There is no boundary stating that Hawise who
married Gilbert must have been an adult and in fact, since her wardship was
given, she could have been a mere baby for all we know. Her oldest known child
was born as late as 1200 per my database, so that does not help at all.

Are you suggesting that this William was not the son of Gundred?

Thanks
Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-29 14:54:28 UTC
Permalink
91. ***@aol.com Nov 28, 8:05 pm Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid
son and heir..Further.. Will Johnson writes:

<<In a message dated 11/27/05 3:51:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@aol.com
writes:

<< It appears Hawsie/Helewise de Lancaster was delivered to ward ship
in 1084
at her fathers death and given in marriage in 1189. If she was 20 at
marriage, then born 1169. Applying our 29 year average interval makes
her father
William de Lancaster II approx b. 1140 and his father approx b. 1111.
Continuing
to Goditha approx b. 1082 and on to Beatrice approx b. 1053 and lastly
to Ivo
approx b. 1024. If she were 15 at her marriage, then Beatrice was
approx b.
1058 and Ivo 1029. So she is bracketed between 1053 and 1058 plus or
minus ??? >>

Sorry but you cannot apply an averaging technique to identify every
possible
interval. My own technique will hopefully demonstrate this. >>

Dear Will:

I assume you a referring to my message <<79. ***@aol.com Nov 27,
6:36 pm>>

I am happy to discuss this matter with you. I believe the real source
of your concern are the tables I put forth regarding the Preston line.
I have demonstrated to my satisfaction that the 29 year interval works
in the Preston line when interleafed with actual records I have found
which are extensive. I agree with you that the column attempting to
stretch the errors provided from 87 years for three generations Tim
Powys-Lybbe used when he developed the +9 & -8 year statistical range
was not correct. However, it doesn?t discredit my entire analysis as
you appear to believe.

My interval, developed over 55 families, is an average. I have always
stated this. I have been careful to use approx b. dates derived from a
1511 known event which you apparently believe provides too much error
over the long period of the tables. I have agreed that error
propagation by using an average is a problem, but when interleafed with
actual records the interval proves a useful technique. You have only
seen the Tables and the correlation with date deaths. Outside the
Preston line, I have been careful to use the word nominal. This word
comes from NASA and it applies to the predicted aspects of an event.
Deviation from these predictions is considered non-nominal. Perhaps you
would happy if I used the word Say. In my earlier career we would say
*that is close enough for Government work* In fact, some would use WAG
or a wild assed guess and to add a little class we would use SWAG or a
scientific WAG.<a little joke>

Use of my interval in my message is no different than Douglas
Richardson?s use of 85 years (Tim Powys-Lubbe suggests the interval is
87 years) for three generations used in the archives and most recently
effectively in his message of << 44. Douglas Richardson Nov 28, 3:16
pm>>. Incidentally my use of this interval is within a few years of his
use of the 85 years per three generations both working from a known
event. His from Michael le Fleming?s birth and I from The 1189 marriage
of Hawise daughter of William de Lancaster d. 1184.

Now for an analysis of your method.

<<Hawise was given in marriage by 1189. She was the daughter of William
of Lancaster, Lord of Kendal and Hawise (Helawise) of Stuteville>> I
agree

<<This Helawise was married twice more to Hugh de Morville d 1202 and
to
William FitzRanulph de Greystoke d 1209 By this last husband she was
mother to Thomas de Greystoke b 1202/10. at which time Helawise could
not have been older then 47 thus b aft 1154. >> The math is correct if
47 is the limit for childbirth in those days. I cannot comment from my
own knowledge re the dates you use which you represent as fact with out
any qualifying statement.

<<Hawise her daughter had to be born by 1185 since her father died in
1184.
However she could not have been born earlier than 1168 when her own
mother, by
our reasoning in the last paragraph could have been no more then 13.>>

d. 1184 is correct. 13 probably has some slop in it. My message
suggested 1169 vice your 1168

<<Thus Helewise of Stuteville was born 1155/68. And Hawise of
Lancaster
1168/85.>> I am not sure about this but I will not dispute because
your argument falls apart next

<<Now William of Lancaster, Lord of Kendel (sic) d 1184 had to be at
least 17 at the
birth of his daughter and so could not have been born later than 1168.
His
own mother Gundred de Warenne did not marry William Lord of Kendel
until at
least 1153 when her prior husband had died. Therefore William's own
birth is
bound by 1153/68>>

William de Lancaster II was NOT the son of Gundred de Warren which is
well known. She also was not mother to Avice according to the recent
discussion in this Newsgroup.

<<My chronology *is* possible. There is no boundary stating that
Hawise who
married Gilbert must have been an adult and in fact, since her wardship
was
given, she could have been a mere baby for all we know. Her oldest
known child
was born as late as 1200 per my database, so that does not help at
all.>>

No matter, the argument is dead.

<<Are you suggesting that this William was not the son of Gundred?>>

If you mean William II? Absolutely!!!!!

<<Thanks Will Johnson>>

By the way using Douglas Richardson?s *rule of 85* with your Hawise b.
1168 we calculate William II approx b. 1140, William I approx b. 1112,
Gofitha approx b. 1084, Beatrice approx b. 1056, and Ivo approx b.
1028. This is pretty damn close to my usage of the 29 interval which
you take exception to as to its utility.

Further, in my message <<79. ***@aol.com Nov 27, 6:36 pm>>

(6) * DE LANCASTRIA, GILBERT: ?His son and successor William fitz
Gilbert
of Lancaster was nephew of an Englishman Ketel son of Eldred whose
sister Godith was Gilbert's wife. His father is unknown. William occurs

from c. 1120-70, G. Washington, 'The parentage of William de Lancaster,

lord of Kendal'. Transactions Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian &
Archaeological Society 62 (1962). Dugdale. Monuslicon Anglicanum,
III, p. 577, no. III; Greenway, Charters of the Honour of Mowbrey
(1972), no. 370; F. Ragg, ?Charter?s of St Peter's (St Leonard's
Hospital, York', TCWAAS (1909), p. 237?* Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS;
by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page 539.

Also she wrote *DE LANCASTRIA, WILLELM FILIUS GILBERTI

?William of Lancaster, also known as William Taillebois, son of Gilbert
and Goditha, sister of Ketel son of Eldred. A defective genealogy in
the Cockersand Cartulary (vol. II. pp. 305-8) made him
great-grandson of Eldred and great-great-grandson of Ivo Taillebois,
who was therefore father of Eldred's wife. In fact, a charter in which
he made a grant to St Leonard's York also contained a confirmation of
the gift of his maternal uncle ('avunculus') Ketcl fitz Eldred, thus
establishing that he was grandson of Eldred.
From this it can be inferred that he was a great-grandson of Ivo
Taillebois, whose post-Domesday barony of Kendal he held. First occurs
c.l120. In 1166 he held 2 fees de novo of Roger de Mowbray at Kendale
and Lonsdale in Westmorland and Horton in Ribblesdale, Yorkshire. Twice
married, secondly, by 1156, to Gundrada, widow or daughter of Roger,
earl of Warwick (d. l153). Father of Jordan (d.v.p.), William II (d.
l184), and Avice, second wife of William II Peverel of Nottingham and
secondly wife of
Richard de Morville (J. Green, 'Ranulf II and Lancashire', in Earldom
of Chester and its Charters, ed. Thackeray, p. 107n.). G. Washington,
'The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of Kendal', Transactions
Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society 62
(1962). Helwise, daughter and heiress of William II of Lancaster (d.
1184), married Gilbert, son of Roger fitz Reinfrid, who became lord of
Kendal in Westmorland in her right (Sanders, 57). Cronnc/Davis, RRAN
III, no. 337; Dugdale, Monuslicon Anglicanum, III, p. 577, no. III:
Greenway, Charters of The Honour of Mowbray (1972), no. 370; F.
Ragg.?* DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page 539

Will, please post the charter which you read differently from Richard
Borthwick; my message to you << 91. ***@aol.com Nov 29, 7:03 am >>


Keats-Rohan, as I said before, is the *BOSS* on this families descent.
I accept her words and suggest you do also.

Will, I appreciate your comments and your time helping me out as some
have been quite helpful. We all make errors. <grin> I see by your
message to Douglas that you hold no more regard for his approach at
chronology than mine. Perhaps we may be correct and you are wrong. In
any event, we can agree to disagree. *Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder* I choose not to continue a *pissing* with you on this matter.

Respectfully,

Dix Preston

W***@aol.com
2005-11-29 02:20:46 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/28/05 12:07:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< One needs to make a
serious look at chronology which I have humbly attempted to do. >>

Your seriousness is offset by your lack of adequately presenting the error
margins of your dates. Using "abt" for estimates that range three to four
generations away from a documented *event* is simply asking for trouble in my
opinion.
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-11-29 02:36:09 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/28/05 12:22:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< We know that Gospatric Fitz Orm issued a charter to St. Bees Priory
sometime in the period, 1138-1157, which charter was witnessed by his
first cousin, Alan Fitz Waltheof, his brothers-in-law, William and
Gilbert Engaine, his wife Elgiva, his mother-in-law, Ebrea [de
Trevers], and his three sons, Thomas, Adam, and Robert [Reference:
Register of the Priory of St. Bees (Surtees Soc. 126) (1915): 60-61]. >>

We don't know this. Where is the text of this charter? I looked the one
MichaelAnne posted and the name Thomas does not appear to be in it at all, let
alone Adam or Robert. So can you post this so we can look at it?
Thanks
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-11-29 02:38:24 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/28/05 12:07:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, ***@aol.com
writes:

<< (1) FILIUS ORM, GOSPATRIC

?Son of Orm, son of Chetel son of Eldred, of Workington, Cumberland.
Pipe Roll 4 Henry II, 120-cl; Pipe Roll 9 Henry II, 10-cl; Pipe Roll 10
Henry II, 2-cl; Pipe Roll 11 Henry II, 54-cl; Pipe Roll 12 Henry II,
88-cl;? Source: DOMESDAY DESCENDANTS; by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, page #
not copied

(2) ?1157 ?Gospatric son of Orm is with the king's court at Woodstock.
Coucher of Furness, pait i, 344.? Source: Farrer, ?Records of Kendale?,
Vol II, page 298

(3) ?1175 ?Gospatric son of Orm renders account of 20 marks to the
Crown for a default. Pipe Roll, 21 Henry n, p. 178.? Source: Farrer,
?Records of Kendale?, Vol II, p 298

(4) ?1176 ?Gospatric son of Orm accounts for an a mercement of 500
marks for the surrender of the king's castle of Appeibi to the king of
Scots. Pipe Roll, 22 Henry n, 119.? Source: Farrer, ?Records of
Kendale?, Vol II, p 298 >>


These don't add anything. We know he died abt 1179
The problem is not determining when he DIED, its determining when he was BORN
:)

Will Johnson
F***@aol.com
2005-11-29 14:23:48 UTC
Permalink
52. ***@aol.com Nov 28, 9:38 pm Will Johnson wrote:

<<These don't add anything. We know he died abt 1179
The problem is not determining when he DIED, its determining when he
was BORN>>

Very good, we all know the problem. I was merely adding some additional
*documentation* to the discussion as most readers would realize.

Respectfully,

Dix Preston
W***@aol.com
2005-11-29 02:40:47 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/28/05 1:06:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< but the standard interpretation of the charter evidence we
have discussed is that Ibrea was the mother of Gospatrick Fitz Orm's
wife, Egliva. I tend toward the standard interpretation. Whichever is
correct, Ibrea can not have been Gospatric Fitz Orm's mother, as Ibrea
was still married to her known husband, Ranulph Engaine, some years
after Gospatric Fitz Orm was born. >>

You have not shown any of the above whatsoever.
You guess at the birthyear of Gospatric, and then later say its proven. It's
not.
We know he was a witness in 1150 and we know he was dead probably by 1179.

If you have more documentary evidence to date him, present it.
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2005-11-29 02:43:18 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/28/05 12:22:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@msn.com writes:

<< Michael de Furness would, of course, be a great-grandson of
Gospatrick Fitz Orm. Using the 85 year rule of thumb for three
generations which I have employed in earlier posts, if we subtract 85
years from 1198, >>

Or we can use the Will Johnson, error margin rule, which says that a father
can be *anywhere* between 17 and 60
So a great-grandson tells us nothing useful at all about his
great-grandfather.

Isn't it time to stop these ridiculous chronologic arguments that reach four
generations away to destroy a line? They aren't convincing anybody.

Will Johnson
butlergrt
2005-11-29 03:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Good Evening Will and All. I had posted about 5 hours
ago a totally different choronology based on charters only and it still is
in the not posted file, rather long but part of what I have found and
fills in some of these long gaps and makes other descents? well it is
obvious:

A Charter: William de Lancaster grants to Gervase de Ainecurt L15 worth of
land etc. Witness:Jordan the grantors son, Gilbert the grantors son, etc.
"the Grantor being William de Lancastre"
Record of Kendal Vol I Helsington and Sizergh, orig. D. at Sizergh
Henry II gave to William Marshall the custody of the heir of William de
Lancastre; see Kirkby in Kendale.
Thiw William de Lancastre(above was the one married to Gundred de Warren
they had 3 sons
1. William
2. Jordan
3. Gilbert

William Mareescallus(Marshall) confirms to Gervase de eincurt his
tenements which William de Lancastre gave him as his charter testifies" to
hold of the said William Marshall and his heirs...etc.witness:Thomas son
of Gospatrick, Gilbert de Lancastre, Roger Croft, Roger son of Adam Henry
son of Norman, Geoffrey de Prestun, Geoffrey son of Robert William
Waleran, Matthew Gernet, William de Kettovill, Richard son of Alard
William de Bevill, Gamel the forester;orig. D. at Sizergh,ibid.

Jordan disappears and presumed oldest and middle of the three, as he
signed first but not necesarrily, but This Gilbert de Lancaster, Williams
youngest brother, becomes the next Lord of Kendal-not Gilbert fitzReinfrid
that married Hawise daugher of William .. in fact it is Gilbert's son
Warin(Warin was steward to King Henry II and was granted custody of
lancaster castle) that marries Heleweise dau of Stuteville Lord of
Knaresborough whose daughter Helewise who marries Gilbert fitzReinfrid who
Then becomes lord of Kendal in the right of his wife.

Gilbert fitzReinfrid does not become Lord of Kendal until 6 John(1205) It
is recorded as I am sure you all know that Gilbert fitzReinfreid was one
of the barons that forced K. John to sign the Magna Carta. When King John
laid seige to Rochester, Gilbert's son William (de Lancaster) the future
Lord of Kendal was found hiding and taken prisoner there. Gilbert had to
provide hostages and had to give up the castles Merhull and Kirkeby to the
king. Gilbert obtained his pardon which was ratified by HenryIII in the
first year of his reign. William remained Lord of Kendal and was high
sheriff of Lancashire from 18 Henry III thru 30 Henry III at the timne of
his death.
The first part is long and full of charters and a totally different line
of descent from Ivo based on these charters. Hope it comes thru. Hopae I
didn't make to many mistakes in typing etc.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler
Loading...