Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh o
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
butlergrt
Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh o
Good Afternoon All,
1st I want to say, "Sorry" Douglas, I didn't mean Richard, sometimes names
and numbers and such get turned around when I write. I think you may be
able to help tremendously on this one.
I have often in my search on the Butler families have noticed an odd
incongruence with names, dates, lands and popping in here and there and
just disappearing and yet always married to people of note. Things just
DON'T seem to add up, here is a major one and yet sheds an abundance of
new light. In the
Rotuli Secti ad Res Anglican et Hibernicas Spetantes, ex Archivisin Domo
Capitulari West Monasteiensi, De Prompti records found
in the basement of the Chapterhouse of Abbey of Westminster of the
Treasurey Court of the Receipt of Exchequer
Rotulus Litterarum Patentium de Anno Regni Johannis AD 1205 & 1206,
p.1-38, Part XIV # 74,
Iquote: "Mandate to Robert le
Vavasour, that as he loves his body, immediately on the sight of these
letters he set at liberty, Gilbert FitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald
Walter, t. wich, 2 Mar".
For those who are not aware, Robert le Vavasour is the father-in-law of
Theobaold Walter, Pincerna(Butler) of Ireland, Theobold died 1205 and his
alledged son and heir as passed down was Theobold Boteler, Robert Vavasour
paid to King John 1200 marks I beleive for his widowed daughter to marry
Fulk Fitzwarin, and as K. John and Fulk had patched up their feud a few
years previous and as the Boteler line continued, What then I say? I have
seen in the "Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" of other sons mentioned but
nowhere else. Gilbert fitzReinfrid is by most genealogical accounts the
son of Roger the son of Ketal the son of of either Orm by some, or the son
of Alfred or Ethelred de Lincoln(Taillebois) But here is listed a mandate
to theobolds father-in-law by king John, and I highly doubt it is an
error, one could surmise that he was held hostage for what ever reason and
then given the manor of Kendal of which he did hold. Some of this does
make logic (trying to keep this short) as Theobold Walter held the manor
of Amounderness given at different times by different accounts and some of
Stainall, he also held the manor of outrawcliffe as I have written and
they are next to the manor of Kendal and in the vicinity of Warrington,
that William Boteler, Lord of Warrington, held, and who married Ada
Workington of Kendal, dau. of Thomas Workington, Lord of Culwen, whose
grandfather Ketel and great grandfather Ethelred (Alfred) de Taillebois
were Lords of Kendal. There is a whole lot more but this is a small start,
as always any and all thoughts are welcome!!
The website that this can be viewed at is:
http://www.triviumpublishing.com/articl ... olls1.html
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler P.S. this could be a can of worms
1st I want to say, "Sorry" Douglas, I didn't mean Richard, sometimes names
and numbers and such get turned around when I write. I think you may be
able to help tremendously on this one.
I have often in my search on the Butler families have noticed an odd
incongruence with names, dates, lands and popping in here and there and
just disappearing and yet always married to people of note. Things just
DON'T seem to add up, here is a major one and yet sheds an abundance of
new light. In the
Rotuli Secti ad Res Anglican et Hibernicas Spetantes, ex Archivisin Domo
Capitulari West Monasteiensi, De Prompti records found
in the basement of the Chapterhouse of Abbey of Westminster of the
Treasurey Court of the Receipt of Exchequer
Rotulus Litterarum Patentium de Anno Regni Johannis AD 1205 & 1206,
p.1-38, Part XIV # 74,
Iquote: "Mandate to Robert le
Vavasour, that as he loves his body, immediately on the sight of these
letters he set at liberty, Gilbert FitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald
Walter, t. wich, 2 Mar".
For those who are not aware, Robert le Vavasour is the father-in-law of
Theobaold Walter, Pincerna(Butler) of Ireland, Theobold died 1205 and his
alledged son and heir as passed down was Theobold Boteler, Robert Vavasour
paid to King John 1200 marks I beleive for his widowed daughter to marry
Fulk Fitzwarin, and as K. John and Fulk had patched up their feud a few
years previous and as the Boteler line continued, What then I say? I have
seen in the "Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" of other sons mentioned but
nowhere else. Gilbert fitzReinfrid is by most genealogical accounts the
son of Roger the son of Ketal the son of of either Orm by some, or the son
of Alfred or Ethelred de Lincoln(Taillebois) But here is listed a mandate
to theobolds father-in-law by king John, and I highly doubt it is an
error, one could surmise that he was held hostage for what ever reason and
then given the manor of Kendal of which he did hold. Some of this does
make logic (trying to keep this short) as Theobold Walter held the manor
of Amounderness given at different times by different accounts and some of
Stainall, he also held the manor of outrawcliffe as I have written and
they are next to the manor of Kendal and in the vicinity of Warrington,
that William Boteler, Lord of Warrington, held, and who married Ada
Workington of Kendal, dau. of Thomas Workington, Lord of Culwen, whose
grandfather Ketel and great grandfather Ethelred (Alfred) de Taillebois
were Lords of Kendal. There is a whole lot more but this is a small start,
as always any and all thoughts are welcome!!
The website that this can be viewed at is:
http://www.triviumpublishing.com/articl ... olls1.html
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler P.S. this could be a can of worms
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
butlergrt wrote:
I think you are missing a generation or something here - see below.
I suspect just the opposite - that there is some kind of error here.
A Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid must be, almost by definition, son either of
someone named Reinfrid or someone named Fitz Reinfrid (on the off chance
that a patronymic had locked into a surname by this time). I cannot
envision any circumstance wherin an actual son of Theobald Walter would
end up with the name Fitz Reinfrid. I suspect that a line of text has
been jumped or something, e.g.
". . . Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, son and heir of
[Reinfrid of Kendal, and to deliver him up to]
Theobalt Walter. . . .
taf
Rotuli Secti ad Res Anglican et Hibernicas Spetantes, ex Archivisin Domo
Capitulari West Monasteiensi, De Prompti records found
in the basement of the Chapterhouse of Abbey of Westminster of the
Treasurey Court of the Receipt of Exchequer
Rotulus Litterarum Patentium de Anno Regni Johannis AD 1205 & 1206,
p.1-38, Part XIV # 74,
Iquote: "Mandate to Robert le
Vavasour, that as he loves his body, immediately on the sight of these
letters he set at liberty, Gilbert FitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald
Walter, t. wich, 2 Mar".
For those who are not aware, Robert le Vavasour is the father-in-law of
Theobaold Walter, Pincerna(Butler) of Ireland, Theobold died 1205 and his
alledged son and heir as passed down was Theobold Boteler, Robert Vavasour
paid to King John 1200 marks I beleive for his widowed daughter to marry
Fulk Fitzwarin, and as K. John and Fulk had patched up their feud a few
years previous and as the Boteler line continued, What then I say? I have
seen in the "Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" of other sons mentioned but
nowhere else. Gilbert fitzReinfrid is by most genealogical accounts the
son of Roger the son of Ketal the son of of either Orm by some, or the son
of Alfred or Ethelred de Lincoln(Taillebois)
I think you are missing a generation or something here - see below.
But here is listed a mandate
to theobolds father-in-law by king John, and I highly doubt it is an
error, one could surmise that he was held hostage for what ever reason and
then given the manor of Kendal of which he did hold.
I suspect just the opposite - that there is some kind of error here.
A Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid must be, almost by definition, son either of
someone named Reinfrid or someone named Fitz Reinfrid (on the off chance
that a patronymic had locked into a surname by this time). I cannot
envision any circumstance wherin an actual son of Theobald Walter would
end up with the name Fitz Reinfrid. I suspect that a line of text has
been jumped or something, e.g.
". . . Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, son and heir of
[Reinfrid of Kendal, and to deliver him up to]
Theobalt Walter. . . .
taf
-
Sutliff
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
Keats-Rohan's DD:539 places Gilbert as son of Roger FitzReinfrid.
HS
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:43837c95@news.ColoState.EDU...
HS
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:43837c95@news.ColoState.EDU...
butlergrt wrote:
Rotuli Secti ad Res Anglican et Hibernicas Spetantes, ex Archivisin Domo
Capitulari West Monasteiensi, De Prompti records found
in the basement of the Chapterhouse of Abbey of Westminster of the
Treasurey Court of the Receipt of Exchequer
Rotulus Litterarum Patentium de Anno Regni Johannis AD 1205 & 1206,
p.1-38, Part XIV # 74,
Iquote: "Mandate to Robert
le
Vavasour, that as he loves his body, immediately on the sight of these
letters he set at liberty, Gilbert FitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald
Walter, t. wich, 2 Mar".
For those who are not aware, Robert le Vavasour is the father-in-law of
Theobaold Walter, Pincerna(Butler) of Ireland, Theobold died 1205 and his
alledged son and heir as passed down was Theobold Boteler, Robert
Vavasour
paid to King John 1200 marks I beleive for his widowed daughter to marry
Fulk Fitzwarin, and as K. John and Fulk had patched up their feud a few
years previous and as the Boteler line continued, What then I say? I have
seen in the "Calendar of Ormonde Deeds" of other sons mentioned but
nowhere else. Gilbert fitzReinfrid is by most genealogical accounts the
son of Roger the son of Ketal the son of of either Orm by some, or the
son
of Alfred or Ethelred de Lincoln(Taillebois)
I think you are missing a generation or something here - see below.
But here is listed a mandate
to theobolds father-in-law by king John, and I highly doubt it is an
error, one could surmise that he was held hostage for what ever reason
and
then given the manor of Kendal of which he did hold.
I suspect just the opposite - that there is some kind of error here.
A Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid must be, almost by definition, son either of
someone named Reinfrid or someone named Fitz Reinfrid (on the off chance
that a patronymic had locked into a surname by this time). I cannot
envision any circumstance wherin an actual son of Theobald Walter would
end up with the name Fitz Reinfrid. I suspect that a line of text has
been jumped or something, e.g.
". . . Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, son and heir of
[Reinfrid of Kendal, and to deliver him up to]
Theobalt Walter. . . .
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
In a message dated 11/22/05 3:54:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< 1184 Helewise [Stuteville]. Married (1) William II de Lancaster, lord of
Kendal d.1184 by whom she had Helewise (2) Hugh de Moreville of Burgh,
Cumberland [prob. cousin of Maud de Morville] d. 1202 by whom she had Ada
and Joan (3) William son of Ranulf, lord of Greystoke d.1209 by whom she had
Thomas >>
I must have an error in my database somewhere. Here is what I can make of
the above.
If Hawise (Helawise) is to be both mother of Helewise (mar Gilbert
FitzReinfrid, Lord of Kendal) AND also mother of Thomas de Greystoke (b 1202/10) then
this puts such a crimp on her possible birth range, that it turns out that
William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendall (d 1246) could not be the son of Gilbert.
This is because his own daughter Alicia de Lancaster b abt 1201 forces his
birth to be pushed back to a date where Hawise would herself still be a toddler.
How can you straighten this out for me?
Thanks
Will Johnson
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< 1184 Helewise [Stuteville]. Married (1) William II de Lancaster, lord of
Kendal d.1184 by whom she had Helewise (2) Hugh de Moreville of Burgh,
Cumberland [prob. cousin of Maud de Morville] d. 1202 by whom she had Ada
and Joan (3) William son of Ranulf, lord of Greystoke d.1209 by whom she had
Thomas >>
I must have an error in my database somewhere. Here is what I can make of
the above.
If Hawise (Helawise) is to be both mother of Helewise (mar Gilbert
FitzReinfrid, Lord of Kendal) AND also mother of Thomas de Greystoke (b 1202/10) then
this puts such a crimp on her possible birth range, that it turns out that
William de Lancaster, Lord of Kendall (d 1246) could not be the son of Gilbert.
This is because his own daughter Alicia de Lancaster b abt 1201 forces his
birth to be pushed back to a date where Hawise would herself still be a toddler.
How can you straighten this out for me?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
butlergrt
Re: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walte
Good Evening Will,
That is some of the problems I have been coming up researching these
various Butler lines and how they are related, especially thru land
records and existing genealogies, there appears to be certain families
where-in dates and people just do not match and for the life of me, I, who
am pretty good, I think, at working around these problems and coming up
with a logical conclusion CANNOT. What you have pointed out has been one
of them. Thank You for pointing out much better than I can on this line.
Best Regards,
Emmett
That is some of the problems I have been coming up researching these
various Butler lines and how they are related, especially thru land
records and existing genealogies, there appears to be certain families
where-in dates and people just do not match and for the life of me, I, who
am pretty good, I think, at working around these problems and coming up
with a logical conclusion CANNOT. What you have pointed out has been one
of them. Thank You for pointing out much better than I can on this line.
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
butlergrt
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
Good Evening Tod et al,
I do not disagree with your summation on the typographical error or a
jumped line, but as Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury and King de
facto of King Richard I and advisor to King John(remember it was after
Hubert Walter died that King John said" at last now I can be truly king of
England)) and of course Theobold Walters brother, these people were so
inter-connected that the likely hood of error is not good and then it must
be. As it was once said after all the obvious has been eliminated whatever
remains no matter how improbable remains, must be the truth. I confess
that this will and cause some problems from a genealogical standpoint(if
proven), websites, books, family myths and legends etc. but what is,is.
It has been written in "The Angle-Saxon Records of the Glanville Family"
that Hervy Walter granted to Theobold Walter before 1165 the manor of
amounderness, yes I know the British UK history records claim about 1196,
and he recieved them from Richard I, but Richard was on the continent
fighting and Hubert Walter his brother was running England, so if he got
them from Hubert Ok. But let us say that the Glanville recoreds from the
1880 were reasonably accurate and not just another vanity production as I
suspect they are fairly accurate as they say that Hervey kept 1 fee from
the See of Ely and it was only about 35 odd years before and it was only a
monastery and had under Hervey the Breton become a bishopric and so that
is correct.
I know that most of the dates for Theobold's birth are 1165, It hardly
makes sense when Henry II goes to Ireland with him in 1171/72 at the age
of 7-8 and makes him pincerna of all of Ireland, let us say 1160 okay now
he is 12/3, I don't think so, he is with Prince John, just made Lord of
Ireland in 1185 and the records in the Calender of Ormonde Deeds" lists
him, ok he is now say 25, a little better but if he recieved Amounderness
say before 1165 and is 21 that puts his birth circa 1140-44, and Gilbert
FitzReinfrid was b.c. 1162 that is far more logical and by the time
Theobold is in Ireland, he is older and a seasoned warrior
Let us posit that Theobold had a first wife and his son took the name of
his mother, Theobolds grand children, de Verdun's kept their mothers name,
his 2nd wife and some went by de Verdun, some went by Boteler. Let us say
that Robert le Vavasour did indeed seize Gilbert fitzReinfrid so that his
daughters son could inherit that position that his father had and Gilbert
was given land in and about kendal? and that later genealogist have put
his name to someone else, just as you are doing, assuming and justifiably
so to an extant, that fitzReinfrid is the son of a Reinfrid, This has
erroneously been done before and carried on for centuries. The way the
Boteler and allied families go just don't seem to add up, but if you look
at it this way some things do start to make sense.
Now as these records are for march 2nd if it is 1205 then Theobold dies
within a month if they were to hand over Gilbert by your intepretation, if
it is 1206, he has been dead about a year and they all know it and the
previous premise would not hold.
I posted this not to be dismissed out of hand but to be seriously
investigated and come to a conclusion one way or another, those 1200 marks
that Robert Vavasour paid to king John so his daughter could re-marry Fulk
fitzWarin was no small penny in those days.
Anyway I felt this would be of great interest and something of this
magnitude needs to be scrutinized carefullty and needs to be put to bed
one way or another. Remember Gilbert fitzReinfrid was deputy sheriff for
Theobold Walter in Lancaster so they more than knew of each other but then
so was Nicholas Pincerna Boteler but nobody wants to touch that with a 10
foot pole.
Best Regards,
Emmett
I do not disagree with your summation on the typographical error or a
jumped line, but as Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury and King de
facto of King Richard I and advisor to King John(remember it was after
Hubert Walter died that King John said" at last now I can be truly king of
England)) and of course Theobold Walters brother, these people were so
inter-connected that the likely hood of error is not good and then it must
be. As it was once said after all the obvious has been eliminated whatever
remains no matter how improbable remains, must be the truth. I confess
that this will and cause some problems from a genealogical standpoint(if
proven), websites, books, family myths and legends etc. but what is,is.
It has been written in "The Angle-Saxon Records of the Glanville Family"
that Hervy Walter granted to Theobold Walter before 1165 the manor of
amounderness, yes I know the British UK history records claim about 1196,
and he recieved them from Richard I, but Richard was on the continent
fighting and Hubert Walter his brother was running England, so if he got
them from Hubert Ok. But let us say that the Glanville recoreds from the
1880 were reasonably accurate and not just another vanity production as I
suspect they are fairly accurate as they say that Hervey kept 1 fee from
the See of Ely and it was only about 35 odd years before and it was only a
monastery and had under Hervey the Breton become a bishopric and so that
is correct.
I know that most of the dates for Theobold's birth are 1165, It hardly
makes sense when Henry II goes to Ireland with him in 1171/72 at the age
of 7-8 and makes him pincerna of all of Ireland, let us say 1160 okay now
he is 12/3, I don't think so, he is with Prince John, just made Lord of
Ireland in 1185 and the records in the Calender of Ormonde Deeds" lists
him, ok he is now say 25, a little better but if he recieved Amounderness
say before 1165 and is 21 that puts his birth circa 1140-44, and Gilbert
FitzReinfrid was b.c. 1162 that is far more logical and by the time
Theobold is in Ireland, he is older and a seasoned warrior
Let us posit that Theobold had a first wife and his son took the name of
his mother, Theobolds grand children, de Verdun's kept their mothers name,
his 2nd wife and some went by de Verdun, some went by Boteler. Let us say
that Robert le Vavasour did indeed seize Gilbert fitzReinfrid so that his
daughters son could inherit that position that his father had and Gilbert
was given land in and about kendal? and that later genealogist have put
his name to someone else, just as you are doing, assuming and justifiably
so to an extant, that fitzReinfrid is the son of a Reinfrid, This has
erroneously been done before and carried on for centuries. The way the
Boteler and allied families go just don't seem to add up, but if you look
at it this way some things do start to make sense.
Now as these records are for march 2nd if it is 1205 then Theobold dies
within a month if they were to hand over Gilbert by your intepretation, if
it is 1206, he has been dead about a year and they all know it and the
previous premise would not hold.
I posted this not to be dismissed out of hand but to be seriously
investigated and come to a conclusion one way or another, those 1200 marks
that Robert Vavasour paid to king John so his daughter could re-marry Fulk
fitzWarin was no small penny in those days.
Anyway I felt this would be of great interest and something of this
magnitude needs to be scrutinized carefullty and needs to be put to bed
one way or another. Remember Gilbert fitzReinfrid was deputy sheriff for
Theobold Walter in Lancaster so they more than knew of each other but then
so was Nicholas Pincerna Boteler but nobody wants to touch that with a 10
foot pole.
Best Regards,
Emmett
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
butlergrt wrote:
But an error, jumping from one line to the next, could have occured, not
in King John's time, but in the 19th century, or whenever the published
version you are posting from was produced. At that time, these
relationships would not, perhaps, have been as well known. Further, as
the posts of virtually everyone who participates here show, anyone, no
matter how familiar with the people they are talking about, can make
this type of error, skipping a line or jumping from one point in their
notes to another.
Not exactly. While you can find various misquotes, and there are also
apparently 6 similar versions in the various original works, the quote
in its earliest form appears to be:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." from _Sign of Four_, Conan Doyle (of
course, in the same work, the same master detective also says, "there
still remains the cocaine-bottle.")
That being said, I am not sure what you are considering 'obvious' yet
which should be eliminated - the basis for there being only one
remaining possibility.
True, but what isn't, isn't.
Huh? The question about reliability is easy enough to answer - did the
source cite the document which demostrates the claim? Is the actual
content of the document consistent with the interpretation? Otherwise
you are just concluding that it happened because it could have, and
somebody once said it did.
Does this argument about his age not hold whether or not Gilbert Fitz
Reinfrid is his son? I don't see the point here.
Possible, but it would mean that the patronymic would have had to have
locked in as a surname two generations earlier for it to have passed
first to a daughter, and then to her son. I can only think of one that
locked in that early. Likewise, I know of no examples where a
patronymic surname was passed through the female line except in much
more recent times, in circumstances that differ significantly. They
were almost invariably abandonned even in the male line in favor of
toponymics or titles.
Theobolds grand children, de Verdun's kept their mothers name,
But none Fitz Nicholas or Fitz Bertram.
Let us say
I was making no such assumption. The name, at the time in question,
would wither have been a patronymic - meaning literally that Gilbert was
son of a person named Reinfrid, or it was a surname, but see above -
patronymic surnames were even frequently dropped within the male line
(as with Walter, which most take to be a patronymic, becoming Butler)
and I know of no case where such a name passed through a female heiress
to her son, while just off the top of my head I can come up with several
examples (such as de Lancaster in this very thread, and de Mandeville)
where the children of someone using a patronymic adopted their mother's
toponymic. All names were not created equal - examples abound of going
from patronymic to toponymic, from toponymic to title, from patronymic
to title, from title to toponymic, etc., but I would be hard pressed
coming up with any examples of someone going _to_ a patronymic from
something else.
This has
"Mistakes have been made in the past" isn't really all that strong of an
argument in favor of an alternative to a specific accepted reconstruction.
The way the
_Not_! my interpretation. It was just an example of how a line could
have been dropped in a document to create a faulty relational statement.
I have no basis for speculating what was in that hypothetical lost
line, other than that it showed Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid to be son and heir
of Roger Fitz Reinfrid, as per Kevin's document.
In that case, another example:
". . . Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, son and heir of
[Roger Fitz Reinfrid of Kendal, whose custody had been granted to]
Theobald Walter. . . .
It is pointless to argue the pluses and minuses of any specific guess
regarding what could have gone in between. The important point is
whether _something_ went in between - whether the document as
transcribed and translated is an authentic representation of the facts.
To me, it fails the smell test.
And yet you out of hand dismissed the possibility that the document
could be in error, and here pooh pooh further discussion of this
possibility.
those 1200 marks
No, but John always tried to squeeze blood out of a turnip - look what
he did to Geoffrey de Mandeville and his ex-wife. Still, this gave
Robert the ability to act in his own family's interests and specifically
those of his daughter, rather than having John decide these issues for them.
taf
Good Evening Tod et al,
I do not disagree with your summation on the typographical error or a
jumped line, but as Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury and King de
facto of King Richard I and advisor to King John(remember it was after
Hubert Walter died that King John said" at last now I can be truly king of
England)) and of course Theobold Walters brother, these people were so
inter-connected that the likely hood of error is not good and then it must
be.
But an error, jumping from one line to the next, could have occured, not
in King John's time, but in the 19th century, or whenever the published
version you are posting from was produced. At that time, these
relationships would not, perhaps, have been as well known. Further, as
the posts of virtually everyone who participates here show, anyone, no
matter how familiar with the people they are talking about, can make
this type of error, skipping a line or jumping from one point in their
notes to another.
As it was once said after all the obvious has been eliminated whatever
remains no matter how improbable remains, must be the truth.
Not exactly. While you can find various misquotes, and there are also
apparently 6 similar versions in the various original works, the quote
in its earliest form appears to be:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth." from _Sign of Four_, Conan Doyle (of
course, in the same work, the same master detective also says, "there
still remains the cocaine-bottle.")
That being said, I am not sure what you are considering 'obvious' yet
which should be eliminated - the basis for there being only one
remaining possibility.
I confess
that this will and cause some problems from a genealogical standpoint(if
proven), websites, books, family myths and legends etc. but what is,is.
True, but what isn't, isn't.
It has been written in "The Angle-Saxon Records of the Glanville Family"
that Hervy Walter granted to Theobold Walter before 1165 the manor of
amounderness, yes I know the British UK history records claim about 1196,
and he recieved them from Richard I, but Richard was on the continent
fighting and Hubert Walter his brother was running England, so if he got
them from Hubert Ok. But let us say that the Glanville recoreds from the
1880 were reasonably accurate and not just another vanity production as I
suspect they are fairly accurate as they say that Hervey kept 1 fee from
the See of Ely and it was only about 35 odd years before and it was only a
monastery and had under Hervey the Breton become a bishopric and so that
is correct.
Huh? The question about reliability is easy enough to answer - did the
source cite the document which demostrates the claim? Is the actual
content of the document consistent with the interpretation? Otherwise
you are just concluding that it happened because it could have, and
somebody once said it did.
I know that most of the dates for Theobold's birth are 1165, It hardly
makes sense when Henry II goes to Ireland with him in 1171/72 at the age
of 7-8 and makes him pincerna of all of Ireland, let us say 1160 okay now
he is 12/3, I don't think so, he is with Prince John, just made Lord of
Ireland in 1185 and the records in the Calender of Ormonde Deeds" lists
him, ok he is now say 25, a little better but if he recieved Amounderness
say before 1165 and is 21 that puts his birth circa 1140-44, and Gilbert
FitzReinfrid was b.c. 1162 that is far more logical and by the time
Theobold is in Ireland, he is older and a seasoned warrior
Does this argument about his age not hold whether or not Gilbert Fitz
Reinfrid is his son? I don't see the point here.
Let us posit that Theobold had a first wife and his son took the name of
his mother,
Possible, but it would mean that the patronymic would have had to have
locked in as a surname two generations earlier for it to have passed
first to a daughter, and then to her son. I can only think of one that
locked in that early. Likewise, I know of no examples where a
patronymic surname was passed through the female line except in much
more recent times, in circumstances that differ significantly. They
were almost invariably abandonned even in the male line in favor of
toponymics or titles.
Theobolds grand children, de Verdun's kept their mothers name,
his 2nd wife and some went by de Verdun, some went by Boteler.
But none Fitz Nicholas or Fitz Bertram.
Let us say
that Robert le Vavasour did indeed seize Gilbert fitzReinfrid so that his
daughters son could inherit that position that his father had and Gilbert
was given land in and about kendal? and that later genealogist have put
his name to someone else, just as you are doing, assuming and justifiably
so to an extant, that fitzReinfrid is the son of a Reinfrid,
I was making no such assumption. The name, at the time in question,
would wither have been a patronymic - meaning literally that Gilbert was
son of a person named Reinfrid, or it was a surname, but see above -
patronymic surnames were even frequently dropped within the male line
(as with Walter, which most take to be a patronymic, becoming Butler)
and I know of no case where such a name passed through a female heiress
to her son, while just off the top of my head I can come up with several
examples (such as de Lancaster in this very thread, and de Mandeville)
where the children of someone using a patronymic adopted their mother's
toponymic. All names were not created equal - examples abound of going
from patronymic to toponymic, from toponymic to title, from patronymic
to title, from title to toponymic, etc., but I would be hard pressed
coming up with any examples of someone going _to_ a patronymic from
something else.
This has
erroneously been done before and carried on for centuries.
"Mistakes have been made in the past" isn't really all that strong of an
argument in favor of an alternative to a specific accepted reconstruction.
The way the
Boteler and allied families go just don't seem to add up, but if you look
at it this way some things do start to make sense.
Now as these records are for march 2nd if it is 1205 then Theobold dies
within a month if they were to hand over Gilbert by your intepretation, if
_Not_! my interpretation. It was just an example of how a line could
have been dropped in a document to create a faulty relational statement.
I have no basis for speculating what was in that hypothetical lost
line, other than that it showed Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid to be son and heir
of Roger Fitz Reinfrid, as per Kevin's document.
it is 1206, he has been dead about a year and they all know it and the
previous premise would not hold.
In that case, another example:
". . . Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, son and heir of
[Roger Fitz Reinfrid of Kendal, whose custody had been granted to]
Theobald Walter. . . .
It is pointless to argue the pluses and minuses of any specific guess
regarding what could have gone in between. The important point is
whether _something_ went in between - whether the document as
transcribed and translated is an authentic representation of the facts.
To me, it fails the smell test.
I posted this not to be dismissed out of hand but to be seriously
investigated and come to a conclusion one way or another,
And yet you out of hand dismissed the possibility that the document
could be in error, and here pooh pooh further discussion of this
possibility.
those 1200 marks
that Robert Vavasour paid to king John so his daughter could re-marry Fulk
fitzWarin was no small penny in those days.
No, but John always tried to squeeze blood out of a turnip - look what
he did to Geoffrey de Mandeville and his ex-wife. Still, this gave
Robert the ability to act in his own family's interests and specifically
those of his daughter, rather than having John decide these issues for them.
taf
-
Terry
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
Not wanting to jump in and destroy this thread since it is relevant to me as
well, but what did John do to the Mandeville's?
Thanks
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh o
well, but what did John do to the Mandeville's?
Thanks
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh o
No, but John always tried to squeeze blood out of a turnip - look what he
did to Geoffrey de Mandeville and his ex-wife. Still, this gave Robert
the ability to act in his own family's interests and specifically those of
his daughter, rather than having John decide these issues for them.
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
Terry wrote:
Geoffrey de Mandeville wanted to marry John's ex-wife, Isabel, daughter
of the Earl of Gloucester and great-granddaughter of Henry I. John made
him pay L20,000 (IIRC), an astronomical amount at the time, which
bankrupted him - probably John's true intent.
taf
Not wanting to jump in and destroy this thread since it is relevant to
me as well, but what did John do to the Mandeville's?
Geoffrey de Mandeville wanted to marry John's ex-wife, Isabel, daughter
of the Earl of Gloucester and great-granddaughter of Henry I. John made
him pay L20,000 (IIRC), an astronomical amount at the time, which
bankrupted him - probably John's true intent.
taf
-
Terry
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
Its a lot of money by to days standards!
Thanks for the information, I did not know that.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh o
Thanks for the information, I did not know that.
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..uh o
Terry wrote:
Not wanting to jump in and destroy this thread since it is relevant to
me as well, but what did John do to the Mandeville's?
Geoffrey de Mandeville wanted to marry John's ex-wife, Isabel, daughter
of the Earl of Gloucester and great-granddaughter of Henry I. John made
him pay L20,000 (IIRC), an astronomical amount at the time, which
bankrupted him - probably John's true intent.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
In a message dated 11/23/05 2:55:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< William de Lancaster I and Gundred de Warrenne m. ca. 1154 had
Avicia b. c. 1155
[In 1171/2, Richard de Morville, son of Hugh the elder, offered 200 marks
to have recognition of his claim to the lands of his wife Avicia, a daughter
of William I of Lancaster.] >>
First comment, I believe Gundred as mother to Avice (Hawise) wife of Richard
de Morville, is suspect.
There is *barely* enough time for them to marry and had Hawise and then for
her to marry Richard to have Ellen (Elena) and THEN for this Ellen to marry
Roland (Lochlan), Lord of Galloway in time to have Alan !
In short, we need not one, not two, but THREE 13-year old mother's in
succession for this to be even possible.
That to me is sufficient to rule it out.
Will Johnson
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< William de Lancaster I and Gundred de Warrenne m. ca. 1154 had
Avicia b. c. 1155
[In 1171/2, Richard de Morville, son of Hugh the elder, offered 200 marks
to have recognition of his claim to the lands of his wife Avicia, a daughter
of William I of Lancaster.] >>
First comment, I believe Gundred as mother to Avice (Hawise) wife of Richard
de Morville, is suspect.
There is *barely* enough time for them to marry and had Hawise and then for
her to marry Richard to have Ellen (Elena) and THEN for this Ellen to marry
Roland (Lochlan), Lord of Galloway in time to have Alan !
In short, we need not one, not two, but THREE 13-year old mother's in
succession for this to be even possible.
That to me is sufficient to rule it out.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
In a message dated 11/23/05 2:55:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< By this marriage he became brother-in-law to Richard de Vernun?, husband of
Helewise de Morvill, Ada's sister. In 1247 Richard de Vernun and Ralf de
Levinton did homage for the Morvill estates lately belonging to Joan de
Morvill, mother of Helewise and Ada. ] >>
Should this here not be "lately belonging to Helewise, mother of Joan and
Ada?" Otherwise it makes no sense and you should add a note that it's backward
Will Johnson
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< By this marriage he became brother-in-law to Richard de Vernun?, husband of
Helewise de Morvill, Ada's sister. In 1247 Richard de Vernun and Ralf de
Levinton did homage for the Morvill estates lately belonging to Joan de
Morvill, mother of Helewise and Ada. ] >>
Should this here not be "lately belonging to Helewise, mother of Joan and
Ada?" Otherwise it makes no sense and you should add a note that it's backward
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Gilbert fitzReinfrid, son and heir of Theobald Walter?..
In a message dated 11/23/05 2:55:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< Ada: Thomas de Multon (d. 1240) married Ada de Lucy, co-heiress of Hugh de
Morville of Burgh and widow of Richard de Lucy. >>
Are you stating here that Ada de Morville, dau of Hugh was married three
times?
1) Richard de Lucy
2) Thomas de Multon
3) Ralph de Levington
Thanks
Will Johnson
pajunkin@cox.net writes:
<< Ada: Thomas de Multon (d. 1240) married Ada de Lucy, co-heiress of Hugh de
Morville of Burgh and widow of Richard de Lucy. >>
Are you stating here that Ada de Morville, dau of Hugh was married three
times?
1) Richard de Lucy
2) Thomas de Multon
3) Ralph de Levington
Thanks
Will Johnson