Hi Todd & Paul
Todd, you wrote in your post that:
*"There was no Redvers descent from the documented marriage of William de
Vernon and Emma (family unknown). This is an error of old standing, wherein
Hugh, father of the William who married Emma and contemporary (Hugh that is)
of the Baldwin and Richard de Redvers/Vernon was mistakenly made son of
William and Emma instead (making William his own grandpa). The Redvers
brothers were, at best, uncles-in-law of Emma. As to Emma being daughter of
Osborn, that is based on her being mother of Richard, which was not the
case.....[snip]...Richard de Vernon/Redvers was made to be son of William
and Emma because Richard was a contemporary and possible brother of Hugh de
Vernon, and Hugh was mistakenly thought to be son of William de Vernon and
Emma."
*
The confusion over the Vernon/Redvers relationship arises from the
translation of charter number 82 in Round's _Calendar of Documents preserved
in France_ (London, 1899) which is the grant by William de Vernon and Emma
his wife to the abbey of Holy Trinity, Rouen, of freedom from tolls in
Vernon. In this Round stated that William de Vernon, Hugh his son, and Emma
his wife had made the grant.
The argument taken from this translation was that this Hugh who was son of
William and Emma was the same person as Hugh de Redvers/de Vernon who is
documented in Vernon later in the 11th century. As it is also documented
that Richard de Redvers had a brother named Hugh, the two pieces were peiced
together and Richard was thus argued to also be a son of William and Emma.
Round's translation though was incorrect. The correct translation was
'William son of Hugh and his wife Emma.' (For a correct version see for
example _Regesta Regum Anglo-Normanorum_, Vol.1, no.20). As Todd points out,
that the charter of William and Emma actually mentions William son of Hugh
and not Hugh son of William therefore shoots this reconstruction somewhere
more serious than just the foot! As recently as 1994, Robert Bearman in his
book on the Redvers family (_Charters of the Redvers Family and the Earldom
of Devon_, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, 1994) referred to this saying
that the evidence did not support this reconstruction. It seems to me
however that even though this original evidence upon which the family
reconstruction was made can be proved to be wrong, I believe that the
identification of Richard and Hugh as sons of William is actually correct
and supported by other evidence.
The basis for this is through the identification of the descendants of
Richard de Redvers. One of his younger sons, William, became lord of Vernon,
which by itself indicates a probably connection to William de Vernon, lord
of Vernon in the eleventh century. [See Bearman's work for numerous
evidences]. However the principal evidence for the connection comes from a
charter by Richard de Vernon, the son of William de Vernon, in which he
confirmed all the gifts to Vernon church which his ancestor the first
William de Vernon had given to them and whose body was buried in the church
['primus Willelmus de Vernone antecessor meus cujus corpus in ecclesia de
Vernone iacet']. According to Rymer [_Feodora_, Vol 9, p.834] this charter
was inspected and reconfirmed by Henry V in 1420 at Rouen.
This primus Willelmus I believe to be the eleventh century William de
Vernon as Richard does not appear to be refering to his own father with this
phrase, and from accounts of Vernon church prior to the French Revolution we
know that there was a tomb of William de Vernon there who was reputed to be
the founder of the church. As we know that Richard was son of William de
Vernon and grandson of Richard de Redvers, the 'Primus Willelmus' must fall
prior to Richard de Redvers. The tenth century William de Vernon seems to
have been born in the 1030s as he was described in one charter of the early
1050s as 'puerolo' and was then active through until at least 1077. [See
Thomas Stapleton, _Memoirs of the House of Vernon_ amongst other sources].
This chronology fits well for a father of Richard de Redvers who was married
shortly after 1086 and died in 1107.
Thus I feel that even though arguments based upon the incorrect translation
of Round's charter can be dismantled, I think that there is sufficient
evidence here which does connect Richard de Redvers and his descendants to
the eleventh century William de Vernon. Unlike the arguments based upon the
relationship of Hugh to William, this argument is based upon the documented
connection of the twelfth century lords of Vernon back through Richard de
Redvers to a 'primus Willelmus de Vernon.' What it does not shed any light
on however, is any further connection between Richard de Redvers and William
Fitz Osbern beyond the fact that being a nepos of the Earl of Hereford
indicates some form of recognised kinship. Whether this was close or distant
will probably not now be known, but it certainly is not evidence enough to
base the an argument that Emma was actually a sister of the Earl.
Luke
Redvers/Vernon Connection [Was Re: William Fitz Osbern's all
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Redvers/Vernon Connection [Was Re: William Fitz Osbern's
Luke Potter wrote:
[a good discussion too long to quote]
Yes, In putting to gether my analysis, I was going on work that was a
bit earlier than the latest speculation, and (less forgivably) got the
two generations of successive Richards confused. As is not infrequently
the case, things would be much easier if the same names wouldn't be
reused, again and again. We have from Robert:
Osmund =niece of Gunnor
de Centumvillers|
|------------|--------------------|
Fulk de Alnou dau
|
|
Baldwin
(Keats-Rohan has a charter in which a Fulk, son of Osmund from a place
near Vernon makes a grant confirmed by his mother Sateselina, and uses
this to fill out these data, but the identifications are not directly
important for this discussion) We then have contemporaries:
Hugh
| -- -- -- --| |
Baldwin Richard William=Emma
(app the (app dsp)
above)
In the next generation:
Richard de Redvers Hugh (app.
(nepos Wm F Os) son William)
| |
\|/ |
| |
Baldwin, Richard de Redvers William
Hugh, William de Vernon de Vernon
Unfortunately, there is no good way of tieing them all together. While
Luke has argued that Richard was son of William and Emma, Keats-Rohan
speculates that he was nephew, son of Baldwin. Unfortunately, the
reasoning behind the latter speculation is not fully elaborated.
taf
[a good discussion too long to quote]
Yes, In putting to gether my analysis, I was going on work that was a
bit earlier than the latest speculation, and (less forgivably) got the
two generations of successive Richards confused. As is not infrequently
the case, things would be much easier if the same names wouldn't be
reused, again and again. We have from Robert:
Osmund =niece of Gunnor
de Centumvillers|
|------------|--------------------|
Fulk de Alnou dau
|
|
Baldwin
(Keats-Rohan has a charter in which a Fulk, son of Osmund from a place
near Vernon makes a grant confirmed by his mother Sateselina, and uses
this to fill out these data, but the identifications are not directly
important for this discussion) We then have contemporaries:
Hugh
| -- -- -- --| |
Baldwin Richard William=Emma
(app the (app dsp)
above)
In the next generation:
Richard de Redvers Hugh (app.
(nepos Wm F Os) son William)
| |
\|/ |
| |
Baldwin, Richard de Redvers William
Hugh, William de Vernon de Vernon
Unfortunately, there is no good way of tieing them all together. While
Luke has argued that Richard was son of William and Emma, Keats-Rohan
speculates that he was nephew, son of Baldwin. Unfortunately, the
reasoning behind the latter speculation is not fully elaborated.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Redvers/Vernon Connection [Was Re: William Fitz Osbern's
Luke Potter wrote:
(snip; but no criticism implied!)
I've got an old pedigree that includes a drawing of this tomb, and it
definitely post-dates William's life by several centuries. It was a
table-tomb with an effigy, an ornate decorated-gothic canopy at the
head and a talbot at the feet. The legs are armoured, the torso covered
by a tabard; two gauntlets lie by one leg , and a plumed helmet with
visor by the other. There are two shields of arms: one bears the fretty
coat as used by the English Vernons descended from Gilbert le Franceys,
and the other seems to be gules, a saltire ermine (not sure what this
is meant to signify- maybe a French Vernon family bore these arms?).
There is a Latin inscription around the edge, which is reproduced in
Stapleton's book (although a couple of words are differently
transcibed), and a French inscription on an end panel (let me know if
you'd like a transcription). The side panel showing in the drawing
bears three compartments, each containing a roundel, with a quatrefoil
within each of the latter. Stapleton thought it 'characteristic only of
works of the 16th Century'; so up to half a millennium after the fact!
[See
There is also a copy of this in the British Library; supposedly only
100 were printed (further to the mention in one of the other threads on
this subject).
Matthew
(snip; but no criticism implied!)
This primus Willelmus I believe to be the eleventh century William de
Vernon as Richard does not appear to be refering to his own father with this
phrase, and from accounts of Vernon church prior to the French Revolution we
know that there was a tomb of William de Vernon there who was reputed to be
the founder of the church.
I've got an old pedigree that includes a drawing of this tomb, and it
definitely post-dates William's life by several centuries. It was a
table-tomb with an effigy, an ornate decorated-gothic canopy at the
head and a talbot at the feet. The legs are armoured, the torso covered
by a tabard; two gauntlets lie by one leg , and a plumed helmet with
visor by the other. There are two shields of arms: one bears the fretty
coat as used by the English Vernons descended from Gilbert le Franceys,
and the other seems to be gules, a saltire ermine (not sure what this
is meant to signify- maybe a French Vernon family bore these arms?).
There is a Latin inscription around the edge, which is reproduced in
Stapleton's book (although a couple of words are differently
transcibed), and a French inscription on an end panel (let me know if
you'd like a transcription). The side panel showing in the drawing
bears three compartments, each containing a roundel, with a quatrefoil
within each of the latter. Stapleton thought it 'characteristic only of
works of the 16th Century'; so up to half a millennium after the fact!
[See
Thomas Stapleton, _Memoirs of the House of Vernon_ amongst other sources].
There is also a copy of this in the British Library; supposedly only
100 were printed (further to the mention in one of the other threads on
this subject).
Matthew