The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Douglas Richardson wrote:
It's interesting that Sibyl, first wife of William de Say (d. 1271/2), may
also have been a Marshal:
"According to Edmonson (vol. iv, no. 320) and other 18th cent.
pedigree-makers, she was da. of John Marshal of Lenton" [Complete Peerage xi
473, note a].
I don't know whether Marshal of Lenton indicates the same family that was
later connected with Denham, and the chronology of William de Say is a bit
strange, but if Sibyl was a daughter of the John Marshal who d. c. 1235,
that would make her an aunt of the John Marshal who married Hawise ----.
Chris Phillips
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
It's interesting that Sibyl, first wife of William de Say (d. 1271/2), may
also have been a Marshal:
"According to Edmonson (vol. iv, no. 320) and other 18th cent.
pedigree-makers, she was da. of John Marshal of Lenton" [Complete Peerage xi
473, note a].
I don't know whether Marshal of Lenton indicates the same family that was
later connected with Denham, and the chronology of William de Say is a bit
strange, but if Sibyl was a daughter of the John Marshal who d. c. 1235,
that would make her an aunt of the John Marshal who married Hawise ----.
Chris Phillips
-
Gjest
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
I keep bumping into the Vaux and D'Acre families while trying
to solve my own mystery. Has anyone information on the Vaux
(or De Vallibus) holding of Catterlen in Cumberland?
I am trying to track Uchtred (the apparent previous
Saxon owner) and his family. Other documents place
the previous owners as "Haldan and his sons Wilifred,
Walther and Cartimer". Later an assiz de mort d'ancestor
was filed against the Vaux's by a William Kersumiere
-- he lost.
It is Cartimer/Kersumiere/Kersuniere who I am most interested
in and his family. I also found another source which puts
Gilsland previously in the posession of Beuth. A Giles Beuth
also later tried to reclaim land from the Vaux family.
I find it all very confusing and wonder if these are the same
people and where I can get the definitive answer (from this
side of the pond -- Canada). Any leads would be most welcome.
Deborah Cartmer
From Bulmer's History and Directory of Cumberland, 1901:
"The last Saxon owner of Catterlen was Uchtred, of whom little
more is known than his name. The manor was given by Henry II.
by way of addition, to, Hubert de Vallibus, a fortunate Norman,
who had received the barony of Gilsland on the very easy terms
of two knight's fees, that is, of supplying the king with two
fully armed horsemen for forty days in the year. De Vallibus
was afterwards shortened into Vaux, and the name in its abridged
form continued to be associated with Catterlen down to the middle
of the 17th century, when the property passed to Christopher
Richmond on his marriage to Mabel Vaux, daughter of co-heiress
of John Vaux. Susan Richmond, who inherited the estate at a later
period, died unmarried in 1775, and left Catterlen by will to her
niece Isabella, married to Henry Curwen, Esq., of Workington Hall.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Douglas Richardson wrote:
to solve my own mystery. Has anyone information on the Vaux
(or De Vallibus) holding of Catterlen in Cumberland?
I am trying to track Uchtred (the apparent previous
Saxon owner) and his family. Other documents place
the previous owners as "Haldan and his sons Wilifred,
Walther and Cartimer". Later an assiz de mort d'ancestor
was filed against the Vaux's by a William Kersumiere
-- he lost.
It is Cartimer/Kersumiere/Kersuniere who I am most interested
in and his family. I also found another source which puts
Gilsland previously in the posession of Beuth. A Giles Beuth
also later tried to reclaim land from the Vaux family.
I find it all very confusing and wonder if these are the same
people and where I can get the definitive answer (from this
side of the pond -- Canada). Any leads would be most welcome.
Deborah Cartmer
From Bulmer's History and Directory of Cumberland, 1901:
"The last Saxon owner of Catterlen was Uchtred, of whom little
more is known than his name. The manor was given by Henry II.
by way of addition, to, Hubert de Vallibus, a fortunate Norman,
who had received the barony of Gilsland on the very easy terms
of two knight's fees, that is, of supplying the king with two
fully armed horsemen for forty days in the year. De Vallibus
was afterwards shortened into Vaux, and the name in its abridged
form continued to be associated with Catterlen down to the middle
of the 17th century, when the property passed to Christopher
Richmond on his marriage to Mabel Vaux, daughter of co-heiress
of John Vaux. Susan Richmond, who inherited the estate at a later
period, died unmarried in 1775, and left Catterlen by will to her
niece Isabella, married to Henry Curwen, Esq., of Workington Hall.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
______________________________
-
Gjest
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Douglas
Is this Thomas de Multon (d. 1271) the father of Arline de Multon, wife of John de Mowbray? Genealogics only goes back as far as Arline.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Is this Thomas de Multon (d. 1271) the father of Arline de Multon, wife of John de Mowbray? Genealogics only goes back as far as Arline.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Date: 22/11/2004 19:06:38
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
The Complete Peerage Volume II page 304 gives the answer.
Aline is a daughter of Thomas de Multon of Burgh-on-Sands and Maud de Vaux.
This link will be there with the next update
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Aline is a daughter of Thomas de Multon of Burgh-on-Sands and Maud de Vaux.
This link will be there with the next update
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <pedricks@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Douglas
Is this Thomas de Multon (d. 1271) the father of Arline de Multon, wife of
John de Mowbray? Genealogics only goes back as far as Arline.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Date: 22/11/2004 19:06:38
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
-
Patricia Junkin
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
These names seem intrinsically woven into the Vipont history. William de
Veteri Ponte [Vieuxpont/Vipont/Vespont/Waypont/Vipan, etc.] married Maud de
Morville, daughter of Hugh and Beatrice Beauchamp. This William was of
"Hardingstone (Northants) Carriden (W. Lothian), Horndean (Berwickshire),
Elrington (in Hayden, N'mb.), Kirkhaugh (in Slaggyford, N'umb.) and Alston
(Cumb.). Thomas de Multon married Ada de Morville. In 1218,13 Aug. Robert de
V. [m. Idonea de Busli] commanded to give Thomas de Multon seizin of his
lands in Copeland and Castle of Egremund. CDRS: "The King commands Robert
de V., as Thomas de Multon )who without the K's leave had married Ada de
Morville widow of Richard de Luci, who was said to be in the King's gift)
had given security by Geoffry de Saucensemar' and Robert de la Mar', to
stand a trial when the K. wills, to give said Thomas seizin of all Ada's
lands in Cumberland and Westmoreland, and of his own lands......"When
Isabella de V. died in 1291, Thomas de Multon holds knight's fees in Hoff
and Drybeck. In a confirmation to Dunfermline Abbey "that part of the land
of Beath which Waldef held, granted by Saer de Quinci as Saer's charters
bears witness. Perth 1197, William Cumin, William de Veteriponte. William de
Vallibus and David de Haya are witness.
From An Armorial for Cumberland:
Both the Multons of Egremont and Silsland appeaar to have descended from the
Multons of Lincolnshire through Thomas de Multon who died in 1240 who
married "Ada de Lucy, co-heiress of Hugh de Morvill of Burgh and widow of
Richard de Lucy, Baron of Egremont, to whose daughters he had already
married his two sons by an earlier marriage (vide Multon of Egremont and
Lucy of Cockermouth). By Ada he had Thomas de Multon, who married Maud,
heiress of Hubert de Vaux, 5th Baron Gilsland, temp. Hen III. The heiress if
the Multons of Gilsland married Ranulph de Dacre in 1317."
CDRS: 29 Oct 1230 "final agreement made in the K's court at
Westminister...befoire Thomas de Muleton, etc. justices....between Alan de
Muleton and Alicia his wife plts. and Lambert de Muleton and Annabilis his
wife defs. concerning moiety of the manors of Egremunt, Aspatric,
Caudelebec, Braythwayt and H [usacre], which the plts. claim agst. the
defs., as alicia's part of the heritagr of Richard de Lucy, father of
Amabilis and herself....[partition includes mention] "of Walter de Percy and
his heirs for his tenement in Blenreheyset and Hukemanby" [Heiress of
Hucumanby & Midelscough
Margaret, married Robert de V. ca. 1320]...of Ivo de V. and his heirs for
his tenement in Ireby"........the document goes further to include all the
tenements in the dower of Ada.
Pat
----------
Veteri Ponte [Vieuxpont/Vipont/Vespont/Waypont/Vipan, etc.] married Maud de
Morville, daughter of Hugh and Beatrice Beauchamp. This William was of
"Hardingstone (Northants) Carriden (W. Lothian), Horndean (Berwickshire),
Elrington (in Hayden, N'mb.), Kirkhaugh (in Slaggyford, N'umb.) and Alston
(Cumb.). Thomas de Multon married Ada de Morville. In 1218,13 Aug. Robert de
V. [m. Idonea de Busli] commanded to give Thomas de Multon seizin of his
lands in Copeland and Castle of Egremund. CDRS: "The King commands Robert
de V., as Thomas de Multon )who without the K's leave had married Ada de
Morville widow of Richard de Luci, who was said to be in the King's gift)
had given security by Geoffry de Saucensemar' and Robert de la Mar', to
stand a trial when the K. wills, to give said Thomas seizin of all Ada's
lands in Cumberland and Westmoreland, and of his own lands......"When
Isabella de V. died in 1291, Thomas de Multon holds knight's fees in Hoff
and Drybeck. In a confirmation to Dunfermline Abbey "that part of the land
of Beath which Waldef held, granted by Saer de Quinci as Saer's charters
bears witness. Perth 1197, William Cumin, William de Veteriponte. William de
Vallibus and David de Haya are witness.
From An Armorial for Cumberland:
Both the Multons of Egremont and Silsland appeaar to have descended from the
Multons of Lincolnshire through Thomas de Multon who died in 1240 who
married "Ada de Lucy, co-heiress of Hugh de Morvill of Burgh and widow of
Richard de Lucy, Baron of Egremont, to whose daughters he had already
married his two sons by an earlier marriage (vide Multon of Egremont and
Lucy of Cockermouth). By Ada he had Thomas de Multon, who married Maud,
heiress of Hubert de Vaux, 5th Baron Gilsland, temp. Hen III. The heiress if
the Multons of Gilsland married Ranulph de Dacre in 1317."
CDRS: 29 Oct 1230 "final agreement made in the K's court at
Westminister...befoire Thomas de Muleton, etc. justices....between Alan de
Muleton and Alicia his wife plts. and Lambert de Muleton and Annabilis his
wife defs. concerning moiety of the manors of Egremunt, Aspatric,
Caudelebec, Braythwayt and H [usacre], which the plts. claim agst. the
defs., as alicia's part of the heritagr of Richard de Lucy, father of
Amabilis and herself....[partition includes mention] "of Walter de Percy and
his heirs for his tenement in Blenreheyset and Hukemanby" [Heiress of
Hucumanby & Midelscough
Margaret, married Robert de V. ca. 1320]...of Ivo de V. and his heirs for
his tenement in Ireby"........the document goes further to include all the
tenements in the dower of Ada.
Pat
----------
From: <pedricks@ozemail.com.au
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Date: Mon, Nov 22, 2004, 5:34 PM
Dear Douglas
Is this Thomas de Multon (d. 1271) the father of Arline de Multon, wife of
John de Mowbray? Genealogics only goes back as far as Arline.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
From: royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Date: 22/11/2004 19:06:38
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post, I can now identity the parentage of
Geoffrey de Say (died 1265/71), 2nd husband of Aline (_____) de Vaux.
My research proves that Geoffrey de Say was a younger son of Geoffrey
de Say (died 1214), of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife, Alice,
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As such, Geoffrey de Say
(died 1265/71) was a younger half-brother, not son, of Geoffrey de
Say, the great Magna Carta baron.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 468 (sub Say) provides the following
information regarding Geofffey de Say (died 1265/71):
"There was one son of the marriage [to Alice de Vere], namely Geoffrey
(ancestor of the Says of Rickling, Essex) given by his father in Sept.
1212 as hostage for his faithful service to the King, who sent him to
Earl de Warenne (Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 124). Geoffrey de Say,
described as son of Geoffrey de Say and Alice de Ver, made a grant to
Walden Abbey as "dominus de Rikelyng," between 1216 and 1226 (Dugdale,
Mon. Anglicanum, vol. iv, p. 151). This Geoffrey had a daughter, Maud
de Crec, who in 1278 held of the Honor of Richmond in Nosterfield,
Cambridgeshire, land which Alice de Vere held in free marriage of her
brother Robert de Vere some 60 years before (Rot. Hundr., vol. ii, p.
428)."
The link between Geoffrey de Say, husband of Aline (______) de Vaux,
is proven by the following record which shows that Geoffrey de Say
resided at Denham, Suffolk (which he held in dower of his wife's 1st
marriage) and at Rickling, Essex:
"Date: 30 Jan. 1265. Grant, at the instance of R. de Vere, Earl of
Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say and his heirs, of free warren in all his
demesne lands in Danham, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex."
[Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2 (1898): 52].
The following additional information regarding Geoffrey de Say is
taken from VCH Cambridge, 6 (1978): 52-53 (sub Shudy Camps):
"Between 1128 and 1135 Henry I granted to Aubrey de Vere (died 1141)
land at Nosterfield formerly held by Geoffrey son of Alan under
Richard Fitz Wimar, steward of that honor ... The Vere lands there
were gradually alienated. Probably in the 1190s the earl of Oxford
gave a manor there to his sister Alice on her marriage c. 1195 to
Geoffrey de Say. On Geoffrey's death in 1214 that manor passed to
their son, another Geoffrey, born by 1197, who died between 1265 and
1271. He had previously granted it in marriage to his daughter Maud,
wife of Geoffrey de Crek, with whom Maud held 1 carucate there in
1272. In 1279 as a widow she held 190 acres there in demesne. By
1282 the estate had passed to Geoffrey's youngest son, Robert de Say,
a clerk (died after 1302), who in 1288 granted the reversion of 1
carucate there to Robert de Tiptoft for the latter's younger son Pain,
killed in 1314 ... Another part of the former Say fee, c. 90 acres,
there and at West Wickham, was sold in 1296 by Robert de Say to
William de Berardshay." END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above that Geoffrey de Say's parents were married c.
1195 and that he was born by 1197 and died 1265/71. We learn that
Geoffrey de Say had at least two sons, a younger one named Robert, a
clerk, and at least one daughter, Maud, wife of Geoffrey de Crek.
As for the identity of Geoffrey de Say's eldest son, I find a Suffolk
fine dated 15 Edward I (1286/7) by and between Margaret de Criollys
and "John son of Geoffrey de Say" regarding the manor of Denham,
Suffolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 88. John son of Geoffrey de Say is apparently the son
and heir of Geoffrey de Say and his wife, Aline (____) de Vaux. Quite
possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293. The published
Essex fines indicates that John de Say similarly dealt with the manor
of Rickling, Essex in 1303 [Reference: Feet of Fines for Essex, 2
(1913-1928): 94]. Presumably he is the John de Say who owed 52/- in
Essex in March, 1289, and 30 marks in Suffolk and Essex in 1292
[Reference: Knights of Edward I 4 (Harleian Soc. 83) (1931): 221-222
(citing Close Rolls)]. Presumably it is John de Say, of Denham,
Suffolk and Rickling, Essex, who is the likely father of Hawise, wife
of John le Marshal (died 1282), ancestor of the Lords Morley.
The chronological information is still not as good as we would like
it. But, knowing that Geoffrey de Say, of Denham and Rickling, was
born by 1197, tells us that Aline (____) de Vaux's first husband,
Hubert de Vaux, probably was born before 1200 as well.
Inasmuch as the given name, Aline, is a Clare family name, quite
possibly Geoffrey de Say of Denham and Rickling is identical with the
Geoffrey de Say who in 1215 had scutage of the knights fee which he
held of the Earl of Clare in free-marriage [Reference: Cl. 16 John.
m.7]. If so, then Aline, wife successively of Hubert de Vaux and
Geoffrey de Say, is quite possibly a hitherto unknown daughter of the
Earl of Clare.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411220006.61a3daa6@posting.google.com>...
As a followup to my original post, I can now identity the parentage of
Geoffrey de Say (died 1265/71), 2nd husband of Aline (_____) de Vaux.
My research proves that Geoffrey de Say was a younger son of Geoffrey
de Say (died 1214), of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife, Alice,
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As such, Geoffrey de Say
(died 1265/71) was a younger half-brother, not son, of Geoffrey de
Say, the great Magna Carta baron.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 468 (sub Say) provides the following
information regarding Geofffey de Say (died 1265/71):
"There was one son of the marriage [to Alice de Vere], namely Geoffrey
(ancestor of the Says of Rickling, Essex) given by his father in Sept.
1212 as hostage for his faithful service to the King, who sent him to
Earl de Warenne (Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 124). Geoffrey de Say,
described as son of Geoffrey de Say and Alice de Ver, made a grant to
Walden Abbey as "dominus de Rikelyng," between 1216 and 1226 (Dugdale,
Mon. Anglicanum, vol. iv, p. 151). This Geoffrey had a daughter, Maud
de Crec, who in 1278 held of the Honor of Richmond in Nosterfield,
Cambridgeshire, land which Alice de Vere held in free marriage of her
brother Robert de Vere some 60 years before (Rot. Hundr., vol. ii, p.
428)."
The link between Geoffrey de Say, husband of Aline (______) de Vaux,
is proven by the following record which shows that Geoffrey de Say
resided at Denham, Suffolk (which he held in dower of his wife's 1st
marriage) and at Rickling, Essex:
"Date: 30 Jan. 1265. Grant, at the instance of R. de Vere, Earl of
Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say and his heirs, of free warren in all his
demesne lands in Danham, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex."
[Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2 (1898): 52].
The following additional information regarding Geoffrey de Say is
taken from VCH Cambridge, 6 (1978): 52-53 (sub Shudy Camps):
"Between 1128 and 1135 Henry I granted to Aubrey de Vere (died 1141)
land at Nosterfield formerly held by Geoffrey son of Alan under
Richard Fitz Wimar, steward of that honor ... The Vere lands there
were gradually alienated. Probably in the 1190s the earl of Oxford
gave a manor there to his sister Alice on her marriage c. 1195 to
Geoffrey de Say. On Geoffrey's death in 1214 that manor passed to
their son, another Geoffrey, born by 1197, who died between 1265 and
1271. He had previously granted it in marriage to his daughter Maud,
wife of Geoffrey de Crek, with whom Maud held 1 carucate there in
1272. In 1279 as a widow she held 190 acres there in demesne. By
1282 the estate had passed to Geoffrey's youngest son, Robert de Say,
a clerk (died after 1302), who in 1288 granted the reversion of 1
carucate there to Robert de Tiptoft for the latter's younger son Pain,
killed in 1314 ... Another part of the former Say fee, c. 90 acres,
there and at West Wickham, was sold in 1296 by Robert de Say to
William de Berardshay." END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above that Geoffrey de Say's parents were married c.
1195 and that he was born by 1197 and died 1265/71. We learn that
Geoffrey de Say had at least two sons, a younger one named Robert, a
clerk, and at least one daughter, Maud, wife of Geoffrey de Crek.
As for the identity of Geoffrey de Say's eldest son, I find a Suffolk
fine dated 15 Edward I (1286/7) by and between Margaret de Criollys
and "John son of Geoffrey de Say" regarding the manor of Denham,
Suffolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 88. John son of Geoffrey de Say is apparently the son
and heir of Geoffrey de Say and his wife, Aline (____) de Vaux. Quite
possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293. The published
Essex fines indicates that John de Say similarly dealt with the manor
of Rickling, Essex in 1303 [Reference: Feet of Fines for Essex, 2
(1913-1928): 94]. Presumably he is the John de Say who owed 52/- in
Essex in March, 1289, and 30 marks in Suffolk and Essex in 1292
[Reference: Knights of Edward I 4 (Harleian Soc. 83) (1931): 221-222
(citing Close Rolls)]. Presumably it is John de Say, of Denham,
Suffolk and Rickling, Essex, who is the likely father of Hawise, wife
of John le Marshal (died 1282), ancestor of the Lords Morley.
The chronological information is still not as good as we would like
it. But, knowing that Geoffrey de Say, of Denham and Rickling, was
born by 1197, tells us that Aline (____) de Vaux's first husband,
Hubert de Vaux, probably was born before 1200 as well.
Inasmuch as the given name, Aline, is a Clare family name, quite
possibly Geoffrey de Say of Denham and Rickling is identical with the
Geoffrey de Say who in 1215 had scutage of the knights fee which he
held of the Earl of Clare in free-marriage [Reference: Cl. 16 John.
m.7]. If so, then Aline, wife successively of Hubert de Vaux and
Geoffrey de Say, is quite possibly a hitherto unknown daughter of the
Earl of Clare.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411220006.61a3daa6@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
""Between 1128 and 1135 Henry I granted to Aubrey de Vere (died 1141) land at Nosterfield formerly held by Geoffrey son of Alan under Richard Fitz Wimar, steward of that honor ... The Vere lands there were gradually alienated. Probably in the 1190s the earl of Oxford gave a manor there to his sister Alice on her marriage c. 1195 to Geoffrey de Say. On Geoffrey's death in 1214 that manor passed to their son, another Geoffrey, born by 1197,"
This would be the same Alice de Vere who married previously to Roger Fitzrichard, 1st Lord Warkworth ? He died in 1177. I had had her death in 1185 but could she really have been married and having children so late?
For some reason I had Aubrey de Vere, Earl Oxford b 1062, even so allowing him to have Alice at the age of 62, she would then be getting married when she herself was 66 to 76.
I guess I have a missing generation in there somewhere.
Will
This would be the same Alice de Vere who married previously to Roger Fitzrichard, 1st Lord Warkworth ? He died in 1177. I had had her death in 1185 but could she really have been married and having children so late?
For some reason I had Aubrey de Vere, Earl Oxford b 1062, even so allowing him to have Alice at the age of 62, she would then be getting married when she herself was 66 to 76.
I guess I have a missing generation in there somewhere.
Will
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my post below, I inadvertedly stated that Aline was a Clare family
name. Actually it is Aveline that was a Clare family name, it
appearing in the previous generation. Aline does appear in the
previous generation, but only as the wife of one of the younger Clare
sons.
The rest of my comments stand as stated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post, I can now identity the parentage of
Geoffrey de Say (died 1265/71), 2nd husband of Aline (_____) de Vaux.
My research proves that Geoffrey de Say was a younger son of Geoffrey
de Say (died 1214), of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife, Alice,
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As such, Geoffrey de Say
(died 1265/71) was a younger half-brother, not son, of Geoffrey de
Say, the great Magna Carta baron.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 468 (sub Say) provides the following
information regarding Geofffey de Say (died 1265/71):
"There was one son of the marriage [to Alice de Vere], namely Geoffrey
(ancestor of the Says of Rickling, Essex) given by his father in Sept.
1212 as hostage for his faithful service to the King, who sent him to
Earl de Warenne (Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 124). Geoffrey de Say,
described as son of Geoffrey de Say and Alice de Ver, made a grant to
Walden Abbey as "dominus de Rikelyng," between 1216 and 1226 (Dugdale,
Mon. Anglicanum, vol. iv, p. 151). This Geoffrey had a daughter, Maud
de Crec, who in 1278 held of the Honor of Richmond in Nosterfield,
Cambridgeshire, land which Alice de Vere held in free marriage of her
brother Robert de Vere some 60 years before (Rot. Hundr., vol. ii, p.
428)."
The link between Geoffrey de Say, husband of Aline (______) de Vaux,
is proven by the following record which shows that Geoffrey de Say
resided at Denham, Suffolk (which he held in dower of his wife's 1st
marriage) and at Rickling, Essex:
"Date: 30 Jan. 1265. Grant, at the instance of R. de Vere, Earl of
Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say and his heirs, of free warren in all his
demesne lands in Danham, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex."
[Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2 (1898): 52].
The following additional information regarding Geoffrey de Say is
taken from VCH Cambridge, 6 (1978): 52-53 (sub Shudy Camps):
"Between 1128 and 1135 Henry I granted to Aubrey de Vere (died 1141)
land at Nosterfield formerly held by Geoffrey son of Alan under
Richard Fitz Wimar, steward of that honor ... The Vere lands there
were gradually alienated. Probably in the 1190s the earl of Oxford
gave a manor there to his sister Alice on her marriage c. 1195 to
Geoffrey de Say. On Geoffrey's death in 1214 that manor passed to
their son, another Geoffrey, born by 1197, who died between 1265 and
1271. He had previously granted it in marriage to his daughter Maud,
wife of Geoffrey de Crek, with whom Maud held 1 carucate there in
1272. In 1279 as a widow she held 190 acres there in demesne. By
1282 the estate had passed to Geoffrey's youngest son, Robert de Say,
a clerk (died after 1302), who in 1288 granted the reversion of 1
carucate there to Robert de Tiptoft for the latter's younger son Pain,
killed in 1314 ... Another part of the former Say fee, c. 90 acres,
there and at West Wickham, was sold in 1296 by Robert de Say to
William de Berardshay." END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above that Geoffrey de Say's parents were married c.
1195 and that he was born by 1197 and died 1265/71. We learn that
Geoffrey de Say had at least two sons, a younger one named Robert, a
clerk, and at least one daughter, Maud, wife of Geoffrey de Crek.
As for the identity of Geoffrey de Say's eldest son, I find a Suffolk
fine dated 15 Edward I (1286/7) by and between Margaret de Criollys
and "John son of Geoffrey de Say" regarding the manor of Denham,
Suffolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 88. John son of Geoffrey de Say is apparently the son
and heir of Geoffrey de Say and his wife, Aline (____) de Vaux. Quite
possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293. The published
Essex fines indicates that John de Say similarly dealt with the manor
of Rickling, Essex in 1303 [Reference: Feet of Fines for Essex, 2
(1913-1928): 94]. Presumably he is the John de Say who owed 52/- in
Essex in March, 1289, and 30 marks in Suffolk and Essex in 1292
[Reference: Knights of Edward I 4 (Harleian Soc. 83) (1931): 221-222
(citing Close Rolls)]. Presumably it is John de Say, of Denham,
Suffolk and Rickling, Essex, who is the likely father of Hawise, wife
of John le Marshal (died 1282), ancestor of the Lords Morley.
The chronological information is still not as good as we would like
it. But, knowing that Geoffrey de Say, of Denham and Rickling, was
born by 1197, tells us that Aline (____) de Vaux's first husband,
Hubert de Vaux, probably was born before 1200 as well.
Inasmuch as the given name, Aline, is a Clare family name, quite
possibly Geoffrey de Say of Denham and Rickling is identical with the
Geoffrey de Say who in 1215 had scutage of the knights fee which he
held of the Earl of Clare in free-marriage [Reference: Cl. 16 John.
m.7]. If so, then Aline, wife successively of Hubert de Vaux and
Geoffrey de Say, is quite possibly a hitherto unknown daughter of the
Earl of Clare.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
In my post below, I inadvertedly stated that Aline was a Clare family
name. Actually it is Aveline that was a Clare family name, it
appearing in the previous generation. Aline does appear in the
previous generation, but only as the wife of one of the younger Clare
sons.
The rest of my comments stand as stated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post, I can now identity the parentage of
Geoffrey de Say (died 1265/71), 2nd husband of Aline (_____) de Vaux.
My research proves that Geoffrey de Say was a younger son of Geoffrey
de Say (died 1214), of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife, Alice,
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As such, Geoffrey de Say
(died 1265/71) was a younger half-brother, not son, of Geoffrey de
Say, the great Magna Carta baron.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 468 (sub Say) provides the following
information regarding Geofffey de Say (died 1265/71):
"There was one son of the marriage [to Alice de Vere], namely Geoffrey
(ancestor of the Says of Rickling, Essex) given by his father in Sept.
1212 as hostage for his faithful service to the King, who sent him to
Earl de Warenne (Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 124). Geoffrey de Say,
described as son of Geoffrey de Say and Alice de Ver, made a grant to
Walden Abbey as "dominus de Rikelyng," between 1216 and 1226 (Dugdale,
Mon. Anglicanum, vol. iv, p. 151). This Geoffrey had a daughter, Maud
de Crec, who in 1278 held of the Honor of Richmond in Nosterfield,
Cambridgeshire, land which Alice de Vere held in free marriage of her
brother Robert de Vere some 60 years before (Rot. Hundr., vol. ii, p.
428)."
The link between Geoffrey de Say, husband of Aline (______) de Vaux,
is proven by the following record which shows that Geoffrey de Say
resided at Denham, Suffolk (which he held in dower of his wife's 1st
marriage) and at Rickling, Essex:
"Date: 30 Jan. 1265. Grant, at the instance of R. de Vere, Earl of
Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say and his heirs, of free warren in all his
demesne lands in Danham, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex."
[Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2 (1898): 52].
The following additional information regarding Geoffrey de Say is
taken from VCH Cambridge, 6 (1978): 52-53 (sub Shudy Camps):
"Between 1128 and 1135 Henry I granted to Aubrey de Vere (died 1141)
land at Nosterfield formerly held by Geoffrey son of Alan under
Richard Fitz Wimar, steward of that honor ... The Vere lands there
were gradually alienated. Probably in the 1190s the earl of Oxford
gave a manor there to his sister Alice on her marriage c. 1195 to
Geoffrey de Say. On Geoffrey's death in 1214 that manor passed to
their son, another Geoffrey, born by 1197, who died between 1265 and
1271. He had previously granted it in marriage to his daughter Maud,
wife of Geoffrey de Crek, with whom Maud held 1 carucate there in
1272. In 1279 as a widow she held 190 acres there in demesne. By
1282 the estate had passed to Geoffrey's youngest son, Robert de Say,
a clerk (died after 1302), who in 1288 granted the reversion of 1
carucate there to Robert de Tiptoft for the latter's younger son Pain,
killed in 1314 ... Another part of the former Say fee, c. 90 acres,
there and at West Wickham, was sold in 1296 by Robert de Say to
William de Berardshay." END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above that Geoffrey de Say's parents were married c.
1195 and that he was born by 1197 and died 1265/71. We learn that
Geoffrey de Say had at least two sons, a younger one named Robert, a
clerk, and at least one daughter, Maud, wife of Geoffrey de Crek.
As for the identity of Geoffrey de Say's eldest son, I find a Suffolk
fine dated 15 Edward I (1286/7) by and between Margaret de Criollys
and "John son of Geoffrey de Say" regarding the manor of Denham,
Suffolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 88. John son of Geoffrey de Say is apparently the son
and heir of Geoffrey de Say and his wife, Aline (____) de Vaux. Quite
possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293. The published
Essex fines indicates that John de Say similarly dealt with the manor
of Rickling, Essex in 1303 [Reference: Feet of Fines for Essex, 2
(1913-1928): 94]. Presumably he is the John de Say who owed 52/- in
Essex in March, 1289, and 30 marks in Suffolk and Essex in 1292
[Reference: Knights of Edward I 4 (Harleian Soc. 83) (1931): 221-222
(citing Close Rolls)]. Presumably it is John de Say, of Denham,
Suffolk and Rickling, Essex, who is the likely father of Hawise, wife
of John le Marshal (died 1282), ancestor of the Lords Morley.
The chronological information is still not as good as we would like
it. But, knowing that Geoffrey de Say, of Denham and Rickling, was
born by 1197, tells us that Aline (____) de Vaux's first husband,
Hubert de Vaux, probably was born before 1200 as well.
Inasmuch as the given name, Aline, is a Clare family name, quite
possibly Geoffrey de Say of Denham and Rickling is identical with the
Geoffrey de Say who in 1215 had scutage of the knights fee which he
held of the Earl of Clare in free-marriage [Reference: Cl. 16 John.
m.7]. If so, then Aline, wife successively of Hubert de Vaux and
Geoffrey de Say, is quite possibly a hitherto unknown daughter of the
Earl of Clare.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
I have a thought. Even though this person is not on Leo's great site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 4&tree=LEO
is it possible that this Alice is not the daughter of Aubrey de Vere d 1141
but rather of Aubrey de Vere d 26 Dec 1194 ?
She could then be at most 30 if the "Earl of Oxford" is her full brother
Aubrey de Vere, 2nd Earl b 1163 (as Leo has it).
Then her marriage c 1195 and the subsequent son would make sense.
I was just confused because the only Alice I knew of was the older one who I
am now suggesting was her aunt.
Will Johnson
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 4&tree=LEO
is it possible that this Alice is not the daughter of Aubrey de Vere d 1141
but rather of Aubrey de Vere d 26 Dec 1194 ?
She could then be at most 30 if the "Earl of Oxford" is her full brother
Aubrey de Vere, 2nd Earl b 1163 (as Leo has it).
Then her marriage c 1195 and the subsequent son would make sense.
I was just confused because the only Alice I knew of was the older one who I
am now suggesting was her aunt.
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Will Johnson wrote:
Yes. The children of the early Veres are discussed in Complete Peerage, vol.
10, Appendix J. According to this (pp. 115-117), the Alice who married Roger
FitzRichard was a daughter of Aubrey II de Vere [d. 1141], and the Alice who
married Geoffrey de Say was a daughter of Aubrey III [the first earl, prob.
b. c. 1110, d. 1194], "almost certainly" by his third wife. A gift to Castle
Hedingham is cited, in which she is called the sister of Robert, Earl of
Oxford.
Chris Phillips
is it possible that this Alice is not the daughter of Aubrey de Vere d
1141
but rather of Aubrey de Vere d 26 Dec 1194 ?
She could then be at most 30 if the "Earl of Oxford" is her full brother
Aubrey de Vere, 2nd Earl b 1163 (as Leo has it).
Then her marriage c 1195 and the subsequent son would make sense.
I was just confused because the only Alice I knew of was the older one who
I
am now suggesting was her aunt.
Yes. The children of the early Veres are discussed in Complete Peerage, vol.
10, Appendix J. According to this (pp. 115-117), the Alice who married Roger
FitzRichard was a daughter of Aubrey II de Vere [d. 1141], and the Alice who
married Geoffrey de Say was a daughter of Aubrey III [the first earl, prob.
b. c. 1110, d. 1194], "almost certainly" by his third wife. A gift to Castle
Hedingham is cited, in which she is called the sister of Robert, Earl of
Oxford.
Chris Phillips
-
Brendan Wilson
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Visitations of Yorkshire 1563-64
Page 83
Lord Vaux of Gylsland = dau and heyr of
Hugh Morvyle
I
Lord Multon = Maud dau and heyr
of Gylsland I
I
Randolf Dacre = Maud dau and heyr
1st Lord Dacre Multon of Gylsland
of Gylsland
15th Henry 3rd
A Genealogical & Heraldic History of Commoners of GB & Ireland
by John Burke 1836
Vol4. Page 100
Family of Vaux
" Hubert Lord of Gillesland by grant of Randulph de Meschines
His line terminated in an heiress, Maud who m. Thomas de Multon, and
conveyed the barony of Gillesland to that family"
Brendan Wilson
New Zealand
On 22 Nov 2004 00:06:38 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
Page 83
Lord Vaux of Gylsland = dau and heyr of
Hugh Morvyle
I
Lord Multon = Maud dau and heyr
of Gylsland I
I
Randolf Dacre = Maud dau and heyr
1st Lord Dacre Multon of Gylsland
of Gylsland
15th Henry 3rd
A Genealogical & Heraldic History of Commoners of GB & Ireland
by John Burke 1836
Vol4. Page 100
Family of Vaux
" Hubert Lord of Gillesland by grant of Randulph de Meschines
His line terminated in an heiress, Maud who m. Thomas de Multon, and
conveyed the barony of Gillesland to that family"
Brendan Wilson
New Zealand
On 22 Nov 2004 00:06:38 -0800, royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas
Richardson) wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my post last evening, I stated the following:
"Quite possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293."
John de Say's half-sister would be Maud (de Vaux) de Multon, who
Complete Peerage indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293.
Maud de Vaux is obviously a separate and distinct person than Margaret
de Criollys.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411221950.79eeadca@posting.google.com>...
In my post last evening, I stated the following:
"Quite possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293."
John de Say's half-sister would be Maud (de Vaux) de Multon, who
Complete Peerage indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293.
Maud de Vaux is obviously a separate and distinct person than Margaret
de Criollys.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411221950.79eeadca@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post, I can now identity the parentage of
Geoffrey de Say (died 1265/71), 2nd husband of Aline (_____) de Vaux.
My research proves that Geoffrey de Say was a younger son of Geoffrey
de Say (died 1214), of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife, Alice,
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As such, Geoffrey de Say
(died 1265/71) was a younger half-brother, not son, of Geoffrey de
Say, the great Magna Carta baron.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 468 (sub Say) provides the following
information regarding Geofffey de Say (died 1265/71):
"There was one son of the marriage [to Alice de Vere], namely Geoffrey
(ancestor of the Says of Rickling, Essex) given by his father in Sept.
1212 as hostage for his faithful service to the King, who sent him to
Earl de Warenne (Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 124). Geoffrey de Say,
described as son of Geoffrey de Say and Alice de Ver, made a grant to
Walden Abbey as "dominus de Rikelyng," between 1216 and 1226 (Dugdale,
Mon. Anglicanum, vol. iv, p. 151). This Geoffrey had a daughter, Maud
de Crec, who in 1278 held of the Honor of Richmond in Nosterfield,
Cambridgeshire, land which Alice de Vere held in free marriage of her
brother Robert de Vere some 60 years before (Rot. Hundr., vol. ii, p.
428)."
The link between Geoffrey de Say, husband of Aline (______) de Vaux,
is proven by the following record which shows that Geoffrey de Say
resided at Denham, Suffolk (which he held in dower of his wife's 1st
marriage) and at Rickling, Essex:
"Date: 30 Jan. 1265. Grant, at the instance of R. de Vere, Earl of
Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say and his heirs, of free warren in all his
demesne lands in Danham, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex."
[Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2 (1898): 52].
The following additional information regarding Geoffrey de Say is
taken from VCH Cambridge, 6 (1978): 52-53 (sub Shudy Camps):
"Between 1128 and 1135 Henry I granted to Aubrey de Vere (died 1141)
land at Nosterfield formerly held by Geoffrey son of Alan under
Richard Fitz Wimar, steward of that honor ... The Vere lands there
were gradually alienated. Probably in the 1190s the earl of Oxford
gave a manor there to his sister Alice on her marriage c. 1195 to
Geoffrey de Say. On Geoffrey's death in 1214 that manor passed to
their son, another Geoffrey, born by 1197, who died between 1265 and
1271. He had previously granted it in marriage to his daughter Maud,
wife of Geoffrey de Crek, with whom Maud held 1 carucate there in
1272. In 1279 as a widow she held 190 acres there in demesne. By
1282 the estate had passed to Geoffrey's youngest son, Robert de Say,
a clerk (died after 1302), who in 1288 granted the reversion of 1
carucate there to Robert de Tiptoft for the latter's younger son Pain,
killed in 1314 ... Another part of the former Say fee, c. 90 acres,
there and at West Wickham, was sold in 1296 by Robert de Say to
William de Berardshay." END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above that Geoffrey de Say's parents were married c.
1195 and that he was born by 1197 and died 1265/71. We learn that
Geoffrey de Say had at least two sons, a younger one named Robert, a
clerk, and at least one daughter, Maud, wife of Geoffrey de Crek.
As for the identity of Geoffrey de Say's eldest son, I find a Suffolk
fine dated 15 Edward I (1286/7) by and between Margaret de Criollys
and "John son of Geoffrey de Say" regarding the manor of Denham,
Suffolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 88. John son of Geoffrey de Say is apparently the son
and heir of Geoffrey de Say and his wife, Aline (____) de Vaux. Quite
possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293. The published
Essex fines indicates that John de Say similarly dealt with the manor
of Rickling, Essex in 1303 [Reference: Feet of Fines for Essex, 2
(1913-1928): 94]. Presumably he is the John de Say who owed 52/- in
Essex in March, 1289, and 30 marks in Suffolk and Essex in 1292
[Reference: Knights of Edward I 4 (Harleian Soc. 83) (1931): 221-222
(citing Close Rolls)]. Presumably it is John de Say, of Denham,
Suffolk and Rickling, Essex, who is the likely father of Hawise, wife
of John le Marshal (died 1282), ancestor of the Lords Morley.
The chronological information is still not as good as we would like
it. But, knowing that Geoffrey de Say, of Denham and Rickling, was
born by 1197, tells us that Aline (____) de Vaux's first husband,
Hubert de Vaux, probably was born before 1200 as well.
Inasmuch as the given name, Aline, is a Clare family name, quite
possibly Geoffrey de Say of Denham and Rickling is identical with the
Geoffrey de Say who in 1215 had scutage of the knights fee which he
held of the Earl of Clare in free-marriage [Reference: Cl. 16 John.
m.7]. If so, then Aline, wife successively of Hubert de Vaux and
Geoffrey de Say, is quite possibly a hitherto unknown daughter of the
Earl of Clare.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411220006.61a3daa6@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my post last evening, I stated the following:
"Quite possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293."
John de Say's half-sister would be Maud (de Vaux) de Multon, who
Complete Peerage indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293.
Maud de Vaux is obviously a separate and distinct person than Margaret
de Criollys.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411221950.79eeadca@posting.google.com>...
In my post last evening, I stated the following:
"Quite possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293."
John de Say's half-sister would be Maud (de Vaux) de Multon, who
Complete Peerage indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293.
Maud de Vaux is obviously a separate and distinct person than Margaret
de Criollys.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411221950.79eeadca@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post, I can now identity the parentage of
Geoffrey de Say (died 1265/71), 2nd husband of Aline (_____) de Vaux.
My research proves that Geoffrey de Say was a younger son of Geoffrey
de Say (died 1214), of West Greenwich, Kent, by his 2nd wife, Alice,
daughter of Aubrey de Vere, Earl of Oxford. As such, Geoffrey de Say
(died 1265/71) was a younger half-brother, not son, of Geoffrey de
Say, the great Magna Carta baron.
Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 468 (sub Say) provides the following
information regarding Geofffey de Say (died 1265/71):
"There was one son of the marriage [to Alice de Vere], namely Geoffrey
(ancestor of the Says of Rickling, Essex) given by his father in Sept.
1212 as hostage for his faithful service to the King, who sent him to
Earl de Warenne (Rot. Lit. Claus., vol. i, p. 124). Geoffrey de Say,
described as son of Geoffrey de Say and Alice de Ver, made a grant to
Walden Abbey as "dominus de Rikelyng," between 1216 and 1226 (Dugdale,
Mon. Anglicanum, vol. iv, p. 151). This Geoffrey had a daughter, Maud
de Crec, who in 1278 held of the Honor of Richmond in Nosterfield,
Cambridgeshire, land which Alice de Vere held in free marriage of her
brother Robert de Vere some 60 years before (Rot. Hundr., vol. ii, p.
428)."
The link between Geoffrey de Say, husband of Aline (______) de Vaux,
is proven by the following record which shows that Geoffrey de Say
resided at Denham, Suffolk (which he held in dower of his wife's 1st
marriage) and at Rickling, Essex:
"Date: 30 Jan. 1265. Grant, at the instance of R. de Vere, Earl of
Oxford, to Geoffrey de Say and his heirs, of free warren in all his
demesne lands in Danham, co. Suffolk, and Rykelinge, co. Essex."
[Reference: Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2 (1898): 52].
The following additional information regarding Geoffrey de Say is
taken from VCH Cambridge, 6 (1978): 52-53 (sub Shudy Camps):
"Between 1128 and 1135 Henry I granted to Aubrey de Vere (died 1141)
land at Nosterfield formerly held by Geoffrey son of Alan under
Richard Fitz Wimar, steward of that honor ... The Vere lands there
were gradually alienated. Probably in the 1190s the earl of Oxford
gave a manor there to his sister Alice on her marriage c. 1195 to
Geoffrey de Say. On Geoffrey's death in 1214 that manor passed to
their son, another Geoffrey, born by 1197, who died between 1265 and
1271. He had previously granted it in marriage to his daughter Maud,
wife of Geoffrey de Crek, with whom Maud held 1 carucate there in
1272. In 1279 as a widow she held 190 acres there in demesne. By
1282 the estate had passed to Geoffrey's youngest son, Robert de Say,
a clerk (died after 1302), who in 1288 granted the reversion of 1
carucate there to Robert de Tiptoft for the latter's younger son Pain,
killed in 1314 ... Another part of the former Say fee, c. 90 acres,
there and at West Wickham, was sold in 1296 by Robert de Say to
William de Berardshay." END OF QUOTE.
We learn from the above that Geoffrey de Say's parents were married c.
1195 and that he was born by 1197 and died 1265/71. We learn that
Geoffrey de Say had at least two sons, a younger one named Robert, a
clerk, and at least one daughter, Maud, wife of Geoffrey de Crek.
As for the identity of Geoffrey de Say's eldest son, I find a Suffolk
fine dated 15 Edward I (1286/7) by and between Margaret de Criollys
and "John son of Geoffrey de Say" regarding the manor of Denham,
Suffolk [Reference: Walter Rye, Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 88. John son of Geoffrey de Say is apparently the son
and heir of Geoffrey de Say and his wife, Aline (____) de Vaux. Quite
possibly, Margaret de Criollys is the identical with John's
half-sister, Margaret (de Vaux) de Multon who Complete Peerage
indicates was widowed in 1271 and lived until 1293. The published
Essex fines indicates that John de Say similarly dealt with the manor
of Rickling, Essex in 1303 [Reference: Feet of Fines for Essex, 2
(1913-1928): 94]. Presumably he is the John de Say who owed 52/- in
Essex in March, 1289, and 30 marks in Suffolk and Essex in 1292
[Reference: Knights of Edward I 4 (Harleian Soc. 83) (1931): 221-222
(citing Close Rolls)]. Presumably it is John de Say, of Denham,
Suffolk and Rickling, Essex, who is the likely father of Hawise, wife
of John le Marshal (died 1282), ancestor of the Lords Morley.
The chronological information is still not as good as we would like
it. But, knowing that Geoffrey de Say, of Denham and Rickling, was
born by 1197, tells us that Aline (____) de Vaux's first husband,
Hubert de Vaux, probably was born before 1200 as well.
Inasmuch as the given name, Aline, is a Clare family name, quite
possibly Geoffrey de Say of Denham and Rickling is identical with the
Geoffrey de Say who in 1215 had scutage of the knights fee which he
held of the Earl of Clare in free-marriage [Reference: Cl. 16 John.
m.7]. If so, then Aline, wife successively of Hubert de Vaux and
Geoffrey de Say, is quite possibly a hitherto unknown daughter of the
Earl of Clare.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411220006.61a3daa6@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Dear Chris ~
Thank you for posting this information. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<cnuu7s$sa7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Thank you for posting this information. Much appreciated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<cnuu7s$sa7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Will Johnson wrote:
is it possible that this Alice is not the daughter of Aubrey de Vere d
1141
but rather of Aubrey de Vere d 26 Dec 1194 ?
She could then be at most 30 if the "Earl of Oxford" is her full brother
Aubrey de Vere, 2nd Earl b 1163 (as Leo has it).
Then her marriage c 1195 and the subsequent son would make sense.
I was just confused because the only Alice I knew of was the older one who
I
am now suggesting was her aunt.
Yes. The children of the early Veres are discussed in Complete Peerage, vol.
10, Appendix J. According to this (pp. 115-117), the Alice who married Roger
FitzRichard was a daughter of Aubrey II de Vere [d. 1141], and the Alice who
married Geoffrey de Say was a daughter of Aubrey III [the first earl, prob.
b. c. 1110, d. 1194], "almost certainly" by his third wife. A gift to Castle
Hedingham is cited, in which she is called the sister of Robert, Earl of
Oxford.
Chris Phillips
-
Leo van de Pas
More Vere related questions Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
<snip>
clean up my entries and, in these very helpful pages, the second last entry
was in regards to Countess Beatrice.
This Beatrice is the first wife of Aubrey the first Earl of Oxford. Here is
recorded that Beatrice inherited through her Guines mother, and her father
was Henry, Constable of Bourbourg and he was son of Theinard also Constable
of Bourbourg.
CP Volume X Page 204,205 Shows Aubrey de Vere, 1st Earl of Oxford, marries
(1)
in or before 1139, Beatrice daughter of Henry Constable of Bourbourg by his
first wife, Sibyl (usually called Rose) daughter and in her issue sole heir
of Manasses Count of Guines.
This marriage was dissolved in or before 1146 and Beatrice married 2ndly
Baldwin Lord of Ardres but died s.p. a few days later.
Dr. E. Warlop, "The Flemish Nobility before 1300" Volume III Page 699-701
show the Bourbourg family.
We find Theinard as father of three sons, Henry, Gilbert and Walter.
This Henry married (1) Sibyl of Guines (2) Beatrice of Aalst.
By Sibyl he has only one daughter, Beatrice. However, here I wonder, who is
more reliable CP or Warlop? Warlop tells that Beatrice died about 1141/1142
and had married (1) Albert 'Aper' (2) Baldwin Lord of Ardres.
No doubt Albert 'Aper' is Aubrey de Vere----who else could it be?
What happened? CP X Page 204 tells she was born after 1120 and was still
young when she married her second husband (1141/2 or 1146) only to die a few
days after the second marriage.
This Beatrice's father had twelve children by his second wife, one of these
Walter/Gaucher was also Castellan of Bourbourg, married Mathilde de Bethune
and fathered three children, Henry, Beatrice and Catherine. This Beatrice
married Arnold II, Count of Guines (!!)
and is an ancestor of Gateway Maria de Carpentier, as well as many other
interesting people, such as Peter de Loriol, Prince William of Wales,
Camilla Parker Bowles, Queen Paola of Belgium, Mary, Queen of Scots and
Catharine de'Medici.
Can anyone give us better details about the first Beatrice? When did she
die?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
<snip>
Yes. The children of the early Veres are discussed in Complete Peerage,
vol.
10, Appendix J.
snip
Chris Phillips
Many thanks to Chris Phillips for mentioning the above. I have tried to
clean up my entries and, in these very helpful pages, the second last entry
was in regards to Countess Beatrice.
This Beatrice is the first wife of Aubrey the first Earl of Oxford. Here is
recorded that Beatrice inherited through her Guines mother, and her father
was Henry, Constable of Bourbourg and he was son of Theinard also Constable
of Bourbourg.
CP Volume X Page 204,205 Shows Aubrey de Vere, 1st Earl of Oxford, marries
(1)
in or before 1139, Beatrice daughter of Henry Constable of Bourbourg by his
first wife, Sibyl (usually called Rose) daughter and in her issue sole heir
of Manasses Count of Guines.
This marriage was dissolved in or before 1146 and Beatrice married 2ndly
Baldwin Lord of Ardres but died s.p. a few days later.
Dr. E. Warlop, "The Flemish Nobility before 1300" Volume III Page 699-701
show the Bourbourg family.
We find Theinard as father of three sons, Henry, Gilbert and Walter.
This Henry married (1) Sibyl of Guines (2) Beatrice of Aalst.
By Sibyl he has only one daughter, Beatrice. However, here I wonder, who is
more reliable CP or Warlop? Warlop tells that Beatrice died about 1141/1142
and had married (1) Albert 'Aper' (2) Baldwin Lord of Ardres.
No doubt Albert 'Aper' is Aubrey de Vere----who else could it be?
What happened? CP X Page 204 tells she was born after 1120 and was still
young when she married her second husband (1141/2 or 1146) only to die a few
days after the second marriage.
This Beatrice's father had twelve children by his second wife, one of these
Walter/Gaucher was also Castellan of Bourbourg, married Mathilde de Bethune
and fathered three children, Henry, Beatrice and Catherine. This Beatrice
married Arnold II, Count of Guines (!!)
and is an ancestor of Gateway Maria de Carpentier, as well as many other
interesting people, such as Peter de Loriol, Prince William of Wales,
Camilla Parker Bowles, Queen Paola of Belgium, Mary, Queen of Scots and
Catharine de'Medici.
Can anyone give us better details about the first Beatrice? When did she
die?
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Chris Phillips
Re: More Vere related questions Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Mars
Leo van de Pas wrote:
I can't help with the difference between the dates given, but CP x 199 note
g quotes "Lamberti Chronicon" (ed. Menilglaise, p. 103) for Beatrice's
marriage 'nobili viro Alberto apro', explaining that '"Alberto" is an error
for Alberico, and "apro" is a latinisation of Ver, through verres'. So
presumably this is Warlop's source from Beatrice's first marriage.
On p. 205, CP cites for the dissolution of this marriage, and for Beatrice's
remarriage, the same chronicle (p. 139), together with Chron. Andrensis
Mon., Spicilegium, vol. ii, p. 810. Perhaps the latter is where 1146 came
from? Does Warlop cite a source for 1141/1142?
Chris Phillips
Dr. E. Warlop, "The Flemish Nobility before 1300" Volume III Page 699-701
show the Bourbourg family.
We find Theinard as father of three sons, Henry, Gilbert and Walter.
This Henry married (1) Sibyl of Guines (2) Beatrice of Aalst.
By Sibyl he has only one daughter, Beatrice. However, here I wonder, who
is
more reliable CP or Warlop? Warlop tells that Beatrice died about
1141/1142
and had married (1) Albert 'Aper' (2) Baldwin Lord of Ardres.
No doubt Albert 'Aper' is Aubrey de Vere----who else could it be?
I can't help with the difference between the dates given, but CP x 199 note
g quotes "Lamberti Chronicon" (ed. Menilglaise, p. 103) for Beatrice's
marriage 'nobili viro Alberto apro', explaining that '"Alberto" is an error
for Alberico, and "apro" is a latinisation of Ver, through verres'. So
presumably this is Warlop's source from Beatrice's first marriage.
On p. 205, CP cites for the dissolution of this marriage, and for Beatrice's
remarriage, the same chronicle (p. 139), together with Chron. Andrensis
Mon., Spicilegium, vol. ii, p. 810. Perhaps the latter is where 1146 came
from? Does Warlop cite a source for 1141/1142?
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Vere related questions Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Mars
Chris Phillips wrote:
It may perhaps be the other way round, and "Alberic" is actually an
error for "Albert".
The identification of "Albertus Aper" (ostensibly meaning Albert the
Wild Boar) with Alberic III de Vere has been taken for granted by most
British genealogists, but has not been as commonly accepted by Flemish
specialists such as Ernest Warlop.
CP implies that the question is settled, but I can't remember any proof
more definite than the interpretation of circumstantial evidence - I am
unable to check this at present, so if there is a clinching point given
by Round or Stapleton it has slipped my mind.
Lambert of Ardres named the man several times, as cited in CP, but only
once called him Alberic instead of Albert; this was not in the chronicle
proper but in a list of chapter headings, see 'Historia comitum
Ghisnensium', edited by Johann Heller, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores 24, p. 560 cap. 43 "Quomodo comes Manasses neptem suam
Beatricem Albrico Apro desponsavit uxorem" (How Count Manasses gave his
granddaughter Beatrice as wife to Alberic the Wild Boar).
The information cited in CP as noted by Chris above is (also from
Heller's MGH edition):
pp. 582-583, cap 43: "Ghisnensis comes Manasses...uxoris sue Emme
consilio, eo quod notiori familiaritate quandoque conversationem habuit
in Anglia quam in alia terra, et gloriosi Broburgensis castellani
Henrici patrocinante adiutorio, neptem suam Beatricem calculosam, ut
dictum est, et morbidam nobili viro Alberto Apro desponsavit in Anglia
(Manasses, count of Guines...by the counsel of his wife Emma, since at
one time she had cultivated closer acquaintance in England than
elsewhere, and with the support of the renowned Henri, castellan of
Bourbourg, gave as wife to the nobleman Albert the Wild Boar in England
his granddaughter Beatrice, ailing from bladder-stone as it was said)
p. 591, cap. 60: "Misit ergo castellanus Bernuinum de sancti Audomari
ecclesia presbiterum aliosque simul presbiteros et milites cum nepte sua
ad Albertum; et exposita ei vie causa, egritudinem uxoris sue cum aliis
sufficientibus causis ei pretulerunt. Accepto die et statuto iudicario
ordine et ecclesiastico, separati sunt Albertus et Beatrix. Et Alberto
in Angliam remanente, Beatrix ad patrem suum apud Broburgum reversa est"
(Thus the castellan [sic] sent Bernuin, priest of the church of
Saint-Omer, with other priests and knights accompanying his
granddaughter [sic, but she was Henri the castellan's daughter] Beatrice
to Albert; the reason for their coming was explained to him, and they
set out the affliction of his wife along with other sufficient causes.
After the date was agreed and according to judicial and ecclesiastical
determination, Albert and Beatrice were divorced. And with Albert
remaining in England, Beatrice returned to her father at Bourbourg.)
Peter Stewart
Leo van de Pas wrote:
Dr. E. Warlop, "The Flemish Nobility before 1300" Volume III Page 699-701
show the Bourbourg family.
We find Theinard as father of three sons, Henry, Gilbert and Walter.
This Henry married (1) Sibyl of Guines (2) Beatrice of Aalst.
By Sibyl he has only one daughter, Beatrice. However, here I wonder, who
is
more reliable CP or Warlop? Warlop tells that Beatrice died about
1141/1142
and had married (1) Albert 'Aper' (2) Baldwin Lord of Ardres.
No doubt Albert 'Aper' is Aubrey de Vere----who else could it be?
I can't help with the difference between the dates given, but CP x 199 note
g quotes "Lamberti Chronicon" (ed. Menilglaise, p. 103) for Beatrice's
marriage 'nobili viro Alberto apro', explaining that '"Alberto" is an error
for Alberico, and "apro" is a latinisation of Ver, through verres'. So
presumably this is Warlop's source from Beatrice's first marriage.
On p. 205, CP cites for the dissolution of this marriage, and for Beatrice's
remarriage, the same chronicle (p. 139), together with Chron. Andrensis
Mon., Spicilegium, vol. ii, p. 810. Perhaps the latter is where 1146 came
from? Does Warlop cite a source for 1141/1142?
It may perhaps be the other way round, and "Alberic" is actually an
error for "Albert".
The identification of "Albertus Aper" (ostensibly meaning Albert the
Wild Boar) with Alberic III de Vere has been taken for granted by most
British genealogists, but has not been as commonly accepted by Flemish
specialists such as Ernest Warlop.
CP implies that the question is settled, but I can't remember any proof
more definite than the interpretation of circumstantial evidence - I am
unable to check this at present, so if there is a clinching point given
by Round or Stapleton it has slipped my mind.
Lambert of Ardres named the man several times, as cited in CP, but only
once called him Alberic instead of Albert; this was not in the chronicle
proper but in a list of chapter headings, see 'Historia comitum
Ghisnensium', edited by Johann Heller, Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores 24, p. 560 cap. 43 "Quomodo comes Manasses neptem suam
Beatricem Albrico Apro desponsavit uxorem" (How Count Manasses gave his
granddaughter Beatrice as wife to Alberic the Wild Boar).
The information cited in CP as noted by Chris above is (also from
Heller's MGH edition):
pp. 582-583, cap 43: "Ghisnensis comes Manasses...uxoris sue Emme
consilio, eo quod notiori familiaritate quandoque conversationem habuit
in Anglia quam in alia terra, et gloriosi Broburgensis castellani
Henrici patrocinante adiutorio, neptem suam Beatricem calculosam, ut
dictum est, et morbidam nobili viro Alberto Apro desponsavit in Anglia
(Manasses, count of Guines...by the counsel of his wife Emma, since at
one time she had cultivated closer acquaintance in England than
elsewhere, and with the support of the renowned Henri, castellan of
Bourbourg, gave as wife to the nobleman Albert the Wild Boar in England
his granddaughter Beatrice, ailing from bladder-stone as it was said)
p. 591, cap. 60: "Misit ergo castellanus Bernuinum de sancti Audomari
ecclesia presbiterum aliosque simul presbiteros et milites cum nepte sua
ad Albertum; et exposita ei vie causa, egritudinem uxoris sue cum aliis
sufficientibus causis ei pretulerunt. Accepto die et statuto iudicario
ordine et ecclesiastico, separati sunt Albertus et Beatrix. Et Alberto
in Angliam remanente, Beatrix ad patrem suum apud Broburgum reversa est"
(Thus the castellan [sic] sent Bernuin, priest of the church of
Saint-Omer, with other priests and knights accompanying his
granddaughter [sic, but she was Henri the castellan's daughter] Beatrice
to Albert; the reason for their coming was explained to him, and they
set out the affliction of his wife along with other sufficient causes.
After the date was agreed and according to judicial and ecclesiastical
determination, Albert and Beatrice were divorced. And with Albert
remaining in England, Beatrice returned to her father at Bourbourg.)
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: More Vere related questions Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Mars
Peter Stewart wrote:
I see CP cites an earlier example, in which a charter of Count Geoffrey
Boterel (1083-1093) is attested by "Albredus Aper", though the
interpretation is more tentative there [CP x 193 note c].
I haven't used Warlop very much but, if I remember correctly, on the
Gerbod/Gundred question he didn't seem to be aware of some of the evidence
from England.
I think part of the argument is that he was styled Count Aubrey in his
father's lifetime (CP x 200), which is explained by his being Count of
Guisnes in his wife's right. (Round originally thought he was created an
earl by the Empress Maud in July 1142. This was redated to 25 July-1 August
1141 by R. H. C. Davis, but would still fall after his father's death in May
1141.)
CP (x 200) also has this more definite evidence:
"Ording, Abbot of St. Edmunds, granted to him as Count of Guisnes the fees
and service of his uncle Roger de Vere and of Alan FitzFrodon, and 100
shillings p.a.(f)
Note f:
Cott. Chr. xxi, 6; Warner and Ellis, Facsimiles, no. 18, pl. xii; Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 189-90. This charter, the only one known in
which Aubrey is styled Count of Guisnes, is assigned by Round to 1148-56
(Idem, p. 439); but Warner and Ellis point out that Ording had been abbot
previously, from 1138 to circa June 1141."
On the date of the divorce, in the text (x 202), CP cites Stapleton,
Archaeologia, xxxi, pp. 234-35, giving a range of date 1144-46. I note that
Keats-Rohan gives Beatrice's date of death as 1142 (Domesday Descendants, p.
235).
Chris Phillips
The identification of "Albertus Aper" (ostensibly meaning Albert the
Wild Boar) with Alberic III de Vere has been taken for granted by most
British genealogists, but has not been as commonly accepted by Flemish
specialists such as Ernest Warlop.
I see CP cites an earlier example, in which a charter of Count Geoffrey
Boterel (1083-1093) is attested by "Albredus Aper", though the
interpretation is more tentative there [CP x 193 note c].
I haven't used Warlop very much but, if I remember correctly, on the
Gerbod/Gundred question he didn't seem to be aware of some of the evidence
from England.
CP implies that the question is settled, but I can't remember any proof
more definite than the interpretation of circumstantial evidence - I am
unable to check this at present, so if there is a clinching point given
by Round or Stapleton it has slipped my mind.
I think part of the argument is that he was styled Count Aubrey in his
father's lifetime (CP x 200), which is explained by his being Count of
Guisnes in his wife's right. (Round originally thought he was created an
earl by the Empress Maud in July 1142. This was redated to 25 July-1 August
1141 by R. H. C. Davis, but would still fall after his father's death in May
1141.)
CP (x 200) also has this more definite evidence:
"Ording, Abbot of St. Edmunds, granted to him as Count of Guisnes the fees
and service of his uncle Roger de Vere and of Alan FitzFrodon, and 100
shillings p.a.(f)
Note f:
Cott. Chr. xxi, 6; Warner and Ellis, Facsimiles, no. 18, pl. xii; Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 189-90. This charter, the only one known in
which Aubrey is styled Count of Guisnes, is assigned by Round to 1148-56
(Idem, p. 439); but Warner and Ellis point out that Ording had been abbot
previously, from 1138 to circa June 1141."
On the date of the divorce, in the text (x 202), CP cites Stapleton,
Archaeologia, xxxi, pp. 234-35, giving a range of date 1144-46. I note that
Keats-Rohan gives Beatrice's date of death as 1142 (Domesday Descendants, p.
235).
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Marshal-Morley connection
Deat Newsgroup ~
As a followup to my original post, I've found new evidence to revise
the estimated marriage date of Thomas de Multon and his wife, Maud de
Vaux. Complete Peerage provided documentation that this couple were
married in or before 1240 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 405,
footnote e (sub Multon)]. I've now located a fine in the published
Suffolk Feet of Fines which shows that this couple were married in or
before 1235/6:
20 Henry III [1235/6]
Thomas de Multon and Matilda his wife v. Hubert de Valliz of
Gerlingham and Denham (Alina wife of Hubert de Valliz puts in her
claim) [Reference: Walter Rye, A Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 38].
Again, we find that the Multon-Vaux-Say chronology continues to be
pushed further back in time than what was first known. In the above
fine, Maud de Vaux's mother, Aline de Vaux, puts in her claim,
doubtless due to Aline's dower rights in the manor of Denham, Suffolk.
Special thanks go to Chris Phillips for his regnal calendar on his
website which helped date the above record.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411220006.61a3daa6@posting.google.com>...
As a followup to my original post, I've found new evidence to revise
the estimated marriage date of Thomas de Multon and his wife, Maud de
Vaux. Complete Peerage provided documentation that this couple were
married in or before 1240 [Reference: Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 405,
footnote e (sub Multon)]. I've now located a fine in the published
Suffolk Feet of Fines which shows that this couple were married in or
before 1235/6:
20 Henry III [1235/6]
Thomas de Multon and Matilda his wife v. Hubert de Valliz of
Gerlingham and Denham (Alina wife of Hubert de Valliz puts in her
claim) [Reference: Walter Rye, A Calendar of the Feet of Fines for
Suffolk (1900): 38].
Again, we find that the Multon-Vaux-Say chronology continues to be
pushed further back in time than what was first known. In the above
fine, Maud de Vaux's mother, Aline de Vaux, puts in her claim,
doubtless due to Aline's dower rights in the manor of Denham, Suffolk.
Special thanks go to Chris Phillips for his regnal calendar on his
website which helped date the above record.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
royalancestry@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0411220006.61a3daa6@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~
Newsgroup members who descend from the Lords Dacre and the two Brewes
heiresses, Aline de Brewes (wife of John de Mowbray) and Joan de
Brewes (wife of James de Bohun) can trace their common ancestry back
to a certain Thomas de Multon (died 1271), whose wife, Maud, was
daughter and heiress of Hubert de Vaux, son and heir apparent of
Robert de Vaux (died 1234), of Gilsland, Cumberland. Little is known
of Hubert de Vaux, as he died in the lifetime of his father.
Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 405, footnote e (sub Multon) shows that
Hubert de Vaux (father of Maud de Vaux) was married to a certain
Aline, whom he dowered with the manor of Surlingham, Suffolk. This is
proven by a lawsuit cited by Complete Peerage dated 1240, citing
Assize Roll 818, m. 19d. In that year, Thomas de Multon and Maud de
Vaux his wife, claimed the manor of Denham, Suffolk, being appurtenant
to Surlingham, against Maud's mother, Aline, and Aline's 2nd husband,
Geoffrey de Say. For records of various lawsuits involving Geoffrey
and Aline de Say, see Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 388, 289, 392, 398; 17:
131, 133, 287, 426, 479-480; 18: 212.
There
seem to be no firm dates for any of these people, except to say
that Thomas de Multon and Maud de Vaux were married in or before 1240,
and that Maud's father, Hubert de Vaux, died sometime before 1234.
Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux, was presumably still living in 1252,
as Complete Peerage notes that dower was still held by an unidentified
Vaux widow of Maud de Vaux's inheritance in that year. This can only
have been Maud's mother. It would probably not be too far off to
guesstimate that Hubert de Vaux was born about 1205, and that his
daughter, Maud de Vaux's birth at about 1225. But these are mere
guesses.
To date, I've found nothing definite regarding Geoffrey de Say's
identity. However, I presume he is identical with the Geoffrey de Say
who was probably a younger son of Geoffrey de Say, the Magna Carta
baron. He appears to have resided at Denham, Suffolk, which was
appurtenant to Surlingham, Norfolk, which property his wife, Aline,
held in dower as noted above. His residence at Denham is further
suggested by a subsequent record concerning the birth of William
Marshal, son and heir of John Marshal and his wife, Hawise, which
William was born at Denham, Suffolk in 1277. William Marshal's
godparents included Pernel de Say and Walter de Say; also a Lady Amice
de Say was present at his birth.
If I understand the meaning of these records, it seems likely that
Hawise, wife of John Marshal (died 1282), was almost certainly a Say.
Certainly John Marshal's marriage was acquired in 1267 by William de
Say, who I believe was William de Say, son and heir of Geoffrey de
Say, the Magna Carta baron. Judging from the chronology, I would
guess that Hawise Marshal was perhaps the granddaughter of the younger
Geoffrey de Say, by his wife, Aline, widow of Hubert de Vaux. There
is a John son of Geoffrey de Say who occurs in this time period in
Suffolk. Quite possibly John son of Geoffrey de Say was the father of
Hawise, wife of John Marshal. Dame Amice de Say would presumably be
John de Say's wife and Hawise's mother. These Marshals are ancestral
to the later Lords Morley.
Doubtless more records exist which concern these families which can
provide a better working chronology and prove the suspected
relationships. If anyone knows any records which would add to the
knowledge of these families, I'd appreciate it if they would post
their information here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Vere related questions Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Mars
Chris Phillips wrote:
This would be pretty conclusive if Aubrey de Vere is actually called
"Ghisnensis comes" in an original document, rather than just titled
"comes" with the designation assumed or added by a subsequent copyist
(although the latter _might_ be good evidence too).
Can anyone confirm the text?
I'm not sure that much weight should necessarily be attached to Aubrey
III's being called count in his father's lifetime - his contemporary &
namesake Aubrey de Dammartin, from a counterpart line of royal
chamberlains, was called count in 1162, yet his father lived until ca 1182.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart wrote:
The identification of "Albertus Aper" (ostensibly meaning Albert the
Wild Boar) with Alberic III de Vere has been taken for granted by most
British genealogists, but has not been as commonly accepted by Flemish
specialists such as Ernest Warlop.
I see CP cites an earlier example, in which a charter of Count Geoffrey
Boterel (1083-1093) is attested by "Albredus Aper", though the
interpretation is more tentative there [CP x 193 note c].
I haven't used Warlop very much but, if I remember correctly, on the
Gerbod/Gundred question he didn't seem to be aware of some of the evidence
from England.
CP implies that the question is settled, but I can't remember any proof
more definite than the interpretation of circumstantial evidence - I am
unable to check this at present, so if there is a clinching point given
by Round or Stapleton it has slipped my mind.
I think part of the argument is that he was styled Count Aubrey in his
father's lifetime (CP x 200), which is explained by his being Count of
Guisnes in his wife's right. (Round originally thought he was created an
earl by the Empress Maud in July 1142. This was redated to 25 July-1 August
1141 by R. H. C. Davis, but would still fall after his father's death in May
1141.)
CP (x 200) also has this more definite evidence:
"Ording, Abbot of St. Edmunds, granted to him as Count of Guisnes the fees
and service of his uncle Roger de Vere and of Alan FitzFrodon, and 100
shillings p.a.(f)
Note f:
Cott. Chr. xxi, 6; Warner and Ellis, Facsimiles, no. 18, pl. xii; Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 189-90. This charter, the only one known in
which Aubrey is styled Count of Guisnes, is assigned by Round to 1148-56
(Idem, p. 439); but Warner and Ellis point out that Ording had been abbot
previously, from 1138 to circa June 1141."
This would be pretty conclusive if Aubrey de Vere is actually called
"Ghisnensis comes" in an original document, rather than just titled
"comes" with the designation assumed or added by a subsequent copyist
(although the latter _might_ be good evidence too).
Can anyone confirm the text?
I'm not sure that much weight should necessarily be attached to Aubrey
III's being called count in his father's lifetime - his contemporary &
namesake Aubrey de Dammartin, from a counterpart line of royal
chamberlains, was called count in 1162, yet his father lived until ca 1182.
Peter Stewart
-
Ginny Wagner
Thorney Prosopography
In a book entitled Family Trees and The Roots of Politics, ed. Keats-Rohan,
pub. 1997 by Boydell, a collection of prosopographical essays (16), one of
which, 'Prosopographical problems of English libri vitae' by John S. Moore
has a very interesting table that is the Classification of spouses' names in
the Thorney liber on pages 184-186.
I've ordered the The Thorney annals, 963-1412AD; an edition and translation
by C. R. Hart, in an effort to view the detailed item that is of interest to
me in the table.
Is that the closest I can get to a primary source document from here in the
states? Does anyone have any other suggestions for followup? Is John
Moore's prosopography considered to be reliable? And Hart's annals?
Thanks for your consideration.
Ginny Wagner
pub. 1997 by Boydell, a collection of prosopographical essays (16), one of
which, 'Prosopographical problems of English libri vitae' by John S. Moore
has a very interesting table that is the Classification of spouses' names in
the Thorney liber on pages 184-186.
I've ordered the The Thorney annals, 963-1412AD; an edition and translation
by C. R. Hart, in an effort to view the detailed item that is of interest to
me in the table.
Is that the closest I can get to a primary source document from here in the
states? Does anyone have any other suggestions for followup? Is John
Moore's prosopography considered to be reliable? And Hart's annals?
Thanks for your consideration.
Ginny Wagner
-
Chris Phillips
Re: More Vere related questions Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Mars
I wrote:
Peter Stewart replied:
I had a chance to look at this today. J. H. Round printed the text of the
charter in "Geoffrey de Mandeville" (1892), pp. 189, 190, from the original
(Cotton Charter xxi.6). The relevant part runs:
"Sciatis me concessisse Alberico comiti Gisnensi per concessum totius
conventus totum feudum et servitium Rogeri de Ver auunculi sui ..."
Earlier (in 1846), Thomas Stapleton had considered the same question in
detail in a paper on the succession to the barony of William of Arques
(Archaeologia xxxi, 216-237). As well as citing the charter where Aubrey is
styled "comes" in his father's lifetime, he points out that in the charter
of the Empress Maud which made him an earl, he is also granted "the
inheritance and right which he claims on the part of his wife, as William de
Arques ever held it at the best" (p. 231).
Evidently Warlop's "Albert 'Aper'" must reflect his unfamiliarity with the
work of 19th-century English researchers.
On the chronology of Beatrice's remarriage and death, Stapleton bases this
on a narrative by Walter de Clusa, who he says was a natural son of
Beatrice's 2nd husband Baldwin of Ardres. Stapleton quotes this in English
translation, and argues from the sequence of the narrative that Beatrice's
remarriage and death took place after an event dated 1144, and before an
event a year and a half later. The latter conclusion seems sound (which
would obviously place it in 1146 or earlier), but based on the text he gives
I'm not so sure about the former.
Round didn't seem entirely convinced either - he says (p. 189) Beatrice's
remarriage was "between 1144 and 1146, thinks Mr. Stapleton".
If Warlop's 1141/1142 or Keats-Rohan's 1142 can be backed up by some
positive, I don't think Stapleton's argument for 1144+ would be much of an
obstacle.
Chris Phillips
CP (x 200) also has this more definite evidence:
"Ording, Abbot of St. Edmunds, granted to him as Count of Guisnes the
fees
and service of his uncle Roger de Vere and of Alan FitzFrodon, and 100
shillings p.a.(f)
Note f:
Cott. Chr. xxi, 6; Warner and Ellis, Facsimiles, no. 18, pl. xii; Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 189-90. This charter, the only one known in
which Aubrey is styled Count of Guisnes, is assigned by Round to 1148-56
(Idem, p. 439); but Warner and Ellis point out that Ording had been
abbot
previously, from 1138 to circa June 1141."
Peter Stewart replied:
This would be pretty conclusive if Aubrey de Vere is actually called
"Ghisnensis comes" in an original document, rather than just titled
"comes" with the designation assumed or added by a subsequent copyist
(although the latter _might_ be good evidence too).
Can anyone confirm the text?
I had a chance to look at this today. J. H. Round printed the text of the
charter in "Geoffrey de Mandeville" (1892), pp. 189, 190, from the original
(Cotton Charter xxi.6). The relevant part runs:
"Sciatis me concessisse Alberico comiti Gisnensi per concessum totius
conventus totum feudum et servitium Rogeri de Ver auunculi sui ..."
Earlier (in 1846), Thomas Stapleton had considered the same question in
detail in a paper on the succession to the barony of William of Arques
(Archaeologia xxxi, 216-237). As well as citing the charter where Aubrey is
styled "comes" in his father's lifetime, he points out that in the charter
of the Empress Maud which made him an earl, he is also granted "the
inheritance and right which he claims on the part of his wife, as William de
Arques ever held it at the best" (p. 231).
Evidently Warlop's "Albert 'Aper'" must reflect his unfamiliarity with the
work of 19th-century English researchers.
On the chronology of Beatrice's remarriage and death, Stapleton bases this
on a narrative by Walter de Clusa, who he says was a natural son of
Beatrice's 2nd husband Baldwin of Ardres. Stapleton quotes this in English
translation, and argues from the sequence of the narrative that Beatrice's
remarriage and death took place after an event dated 1144, and before an
event a year and a half later. The latter conclusion seems sound (which
would obviously place it in 1146 or earlier), but based on the text he gives
I'm not so sure about the former.
Round didn't seem entirely convinced either - he says (p. 189) Beatrice's
remarriage was "between 1144 and 1146, thinks Mr. Stapleton".
If Warlop's 1141/1142 or Keats-Rohan's 1142 can be backed up by some
positive, I don't think Stapleton's argument for 1144+ would be much of an
obstacle.
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: More Vere related questions Re: The Vaux-Multon-Say-Mars
Chris Phillips wrote:
Thanks. Chris - someone has pointed out to me off-list that Warlop's
oversight is repeated by Leah Shopkow in her translation of Lambert,
_The History of the Counts of Guines and Lords of Ardres_ (Philadelphia,
2001), where she apparently notes that "Albert Aper" is unidentified.
Apart from the mutation of "Vere" into "Aper" (and some French scholars
have adopted Du Chesne's "Albert le Sanglier" for Beatrice's first
husband!) it would seem that "Albert" and "Alberic" were mistakenly
thought to be versions of the same name by the time that Lambert's
chronicle was written. This mix-up is like the process whereby "Radbod"
and "Robert" came to be thought interchangeable, for instance with
Robert I, count of Namur in the 10th century, as someone was questioning
in another thread.
Peter Stewart
I wrote:
CP (x 200) also has this more definite evidence:
"Ording, Abbot of St. Edmunds, granted to him as Count of Guisnes the
fees
and service of his uncle Roger de Vere and of Alan FitzFrodon, and 100
shillings p.a.(f)
Note f:
Cott. Chr. xxi, 6; Warner and Ellis, Facsimiles, no. 18, pl. xii; Round,
Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 189-90. This charter, the only one known in
which Aubrey is styled Count of Guisnes, is assigned by Round to 1148-56
(Idem, p. 439); but Warner and Ellis point out that Ording had been
abbot
previously, from 1138 to circa June 1141."
Peter Stewart replied:
This would be pretty conclusive if Aubrey de Vere is actually called
"Ghisnensis comes" in an original document, rather than just titled
"comes" with the designation assumed or added by a subsequent copyist
(although the latter _might_ be good evidence too).
Can anyone confirm the text?
I had a chance to look at this today. J. H. Round printed the text of the
charter in "Geoffrey de Mandeville" (1892), pp. 189, 190, from the original
(Cotton Charter xxi.6). The relevant part runs:
"Sciatis me concessisse Alberico comiti Gisnensi per concessum totius
conventus totum feudum et servitium Rogeri de Ver auunculi sui ..."
Earlier (in 1846), Thomas Stapleton had considered the same question in
detail in a paper on the succession to the barony of William of Arques
(Archaeologia xxxi, 216-237). As well as citing the charter where Aubrey is
styled "comes" in his father's lifetime, he points out that in the charter
of the Empress Maud which made him an earl, he is also granted "the
inheritance and right which he claims on the part of his wife, as William de
Arques ever held it at the best" (p. 231).
Evidently Warlop's "Albert 'Aper'" must reflect his unfamiliarity with the
work of 19th-century English researchers.
Thanks. Chris - someone has pointed out to me off-list that Warlop's
oversight is repeated by Leah Shopkow in her translation of Lambert,
_The History of the Counts of Guines and Lords of Ardres_ (Philadelphia,
2001), where she apparently notes that "Albert Aper" is unidentified.
Apart from the mutation of "Vere" into "Aper" (and some French scholars
have adopted Du Chesne's "Albert le Sanglier" for Beatrice's first
husband!) it would seem that "Albert" and "Alberic" were mistakenly
thought to be versions of the same name by the time that Lambert's
chronicle was written. This mix-up is like the process whereby "Radbod"
and "Robert" came to be thought interchangeable, for instance with
Robert I, count of Namur in the 10th century, as someone was questioning
in another thread.
Peter Stewart