1189-94 hugh de morville lord of kendal

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
butlergrt

1189-94 hugh de morville lord of kendal

Legg inn av butlergrt » 01 des 2005 05:43:38

Good Evening All,
This may help explain things to some degree in others cause more
confusion. One must keep in mind that merely because of marriage or next
son in line that as in this case the honor of Lancaster, the barony of
Kendal or as happened in this family you got the land but the honor was
withheld by the crown and not bestowed for a period of time.
1. William de Lancastre II died by Michaelmas 1184 "when the Kings sheriff
answered for his men" pipe roll 30 Henry II.
2. Henry the II gave to William Marshall the custody of the heir(not
Heiress, see #3) of William de Lancastser; See Kirkby in Kendale
3.William Mareescallus(Marshall) confirms to Gervase de Eincurt his
tenements which William de Lancastre gave him as his charter testifies "to
hold of the said William Marshall and his heirs in fee and
Inheritance".Witnesses: Thomas son of Gospatrick, Gilbert de Lancaster,
Roger de Croft Roger son of Adam, Henry son of Norman, Geoffrey de
Prestun, Geoffrey son of Robert, William Waleran,Matthew Gernet, William
de Kettovill, Richard son of Alard, William Bevill, Gamel the forester;
orig. D. at Sizergh
This is in April 1184, you will notice the GILBERT DE LANCASTER, The
kings hope was that Helewise de Lancaster would marry William Marshall, it
did not happen as he married another heiress.
4. In a previous charter dated 1170, "William de LancasterII grants to
Gervase de Ainecurt L15 worth of land for the service of 3/4 fee in
Natland, Bothelford to the brook of the gallows and to the bounds of
Hoton, Stainton with Sizaritherge, Winderg and other...etc. witnesses;
Norman the sewer, Jordan the grantors son, Gilbert the grantors son
Grunebald,Robert de Heriez,Anselm, Orm son of Tor, Roger de Crofd,Roger
son of Adam... and others.
The Grantor is William de Lancastser, the grantors sons are Jordon and
Gilbert!!!!
Records of Kendale Vol I by William Farrer Litt.D.

Now let us go back a little to William de Lancastser I, "on his marriage
to Gundreda daughter of Roger, Earl of Warwick gave to the Canons between
1153-56 his manor of Cockerham, Henry II in the latter year confirmed the
gift".

Remember William de Lancaster II died before Michaelmas 1184!!!!!!

"The Canons obtained judgment in the court of John, Count of Mortain(Later
King John)where the Lord of the Honor of Lancaster between 1189-1194
against Williams' wife Helewise and her 2nd husband Hugh de Morville, who
there upon confirmed the original gifts, as did Count John".

"..further litigation between his daughter and heiress Heloise and Gilbert
son of Rogerfitz Reinfred, May 13 1207"
Austin Canons, Priori of Cockersand, Vol. II pp152-3 British history
Archives, etc.
This shows two things 1. that Hugh de Morville was Lord of Kendal between
1189-94 and even tho Gilbert son of William and brother of Jordan was
either alive and most certainly his son Warin fitzGilbert was and
definitely Henry fitzWarin de Lancaster as King John in August 1207
confirmed the grants to Henry fitzwarin that was his fathers, but retained
Liverpool for the crown but giving him the manor of English Tea in it's
place, 5 days later King John issues a charter creating Liverpool as a
Borough, August 21, 1207.
It is also true that Gilbert FitReinfrid son of Roger who married Helewise
owned most of the land in the original barony of Kendal but did not
recieve that honor until 1205, He sided with the Magna Charta Barons and
later at the seige of Rochester his son William was found hiding and
captured, Besides plying many hostages for good conduct, he also had to
give up two of his castles(Murhull and Kirkeby) to the crown. His son
William, did not inherit the Honor of Lancaster, the Barony of Kendal
until 1241 and he died in 1246, issueless he was also in that time perioid
high sheriff of Lancashire. I believe that part of this stems froom
William II roll in the rebellion of 1173-4. You will also note that it
distinguishes between Gilbert de Lancaster and Gilbert fitzReinfrid son of
Roger. Now where was I? oh yes working on the finishing touches of the
descent of the house of Lancaster from Ivo thru the last William de
Lancaster in 1246, along with charters and pipe rolls. More Later, of
course.
Best Regards.
Emmett L. Butler

butlergrt

Gundreda, dau of Roger, E. of Warwick

Legg inn av butlergrt » 01 des 2005 14:43:49

Good Morning,
As I had posted about the charters of William de Lancaster I in honor of
his marriage to Gundreda mar.c. 1153-1156, daughter of Roger, Earl of
Warwick, cousin to Robert, Earl of Leicester who founded the abbey in 1143
and giving the (William) Manor of Cockerham to the abbey and confirmed in
the latter year by Henry II. the website where this can be viewed is:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report ... mpid=38354 .
If this is indeed true and I suspect it is, then Gundred dau of William de
Warrenne, E. of Warren, is not only untrue, but it makes a moot point as
to whether William de Lancaster I wifes' name is Gundred or Gundreda at
this juncture, as the entire descent becomes totally different and much
more interesting.
If anyone read 1189-94 Hugh de Morevile lord of Kendal, post or topic,
with this same data including several piperolls, one can see why there is
this large gap in time between the various Lords of Kendal in the normal
sequence of descent. This in and of itself creates another interesting
dilemma, either Hugh de Morville ascribed death c. mid 1160 died or he did
not, or there is a hitherto unknown Hugh de Moreville, altho I have a
feeling there is not.

taf, as to why so much speculation/invention of Ivo, I suspect, that as he
was a henchman of William Rufus and it was he who gave Ivo the Barony of
Kendal, that there are many shadowy things that were not recorded by later
generations who knew the truth about him and wanted to, if not at least
give him some aura of repect, at least hide that which he was a part of.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Gjest

Re: Gundreda, dau of Roger, E. of Warwick

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 des 2005 15:06:22

butlergrt wrote:

If this is indeed true and I suspect it is, then Gundred dau of William de
Warrenne, E. of Warren, is not only untrue,

Huh? Are you suggesting she was a liar?

but it makes a moot point as
to whether William de Lancaster I wifes' name is Gundred or Gundreda

What is moot about it? They are slight variants of the same name.

(snip) This in and of itself creates another interesting dilemma,
either Hugh de Morville ascribed death c. mid 1160 died or he did not

I think we can all agree with that statement at least.

MAR

butlergrt

Re: Gundreda, dau of Roger, E. of Warwick

Legg inn av butlergrt » 02 des 2005 20:23:25

Good afternoon MAR et al,
Who is a liar? I do not understand your statement. The point I was trying
to make is that the entire concept of lineage may be altered if William
Lancaster married Gundreda dau of Roger as opposed to Gundred, daughter of
William. It might open up a whole avenue of records that would not be
looked at if one were looking only at the records of they way the marriage
has historically been presented. As the Archives have stated (and they can
be wrong too) The charter was granted to the abbey for the manor of
Heversham on HIS marriage to Gundreda daught er of Roger,Earl of Warwick
cousin to Robert Earl of Leicester. At least there would be some logic to
the granting of lands forthe benefacators of the abbey. otherwise it might
appear as non-logical.
And yes, Will, if you are reading this it does not say whether Grundreda
was his daughter or wife, it states HIS marriage to ... Him, being William
de Lancaster I.
Yes mar, they are variants of the same name, it is whom she was the
daughter of that is important here, regardless of her name, refer to above
again, a potential new avenue of records that may yield the clues we are
all so earnestly looking for.
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler

Gjest

Re: Gundreda, dau of Roger, E. of Warwick

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 des 2005 00:51:36

butlergrt schrieb:

Good afternoon MAR et al,
Who is a liar? I do not understand your statement.

You had written:

"If this is indeed true and I suspect it is, then Gundred dau of
William de
Warrenne, E. of Warren, is not only untrue, but it makes a moot point
as
to whether William de Lancaster I wifes' name is Gundred or Gundreda at

this juncture, as the entire descent becomes totally different and much

more interesting."

It wasn't clear to me what you meant when you said "Gundred dau of
William de Warrenne, E. of Warren, is not only untrue..." - I presume
you meant if the statement that the marriage to a daughter of the Earl
de Warenne is untrue; this wasn't quite clear to me.

The point I was trying
to make is that the entire concept of lineage may be altered if William
Lancaster married Gundreda dau of Roger as opposed to Gundred, daughter of
William. It might open up a whole avenue of records that would not be
looked at if one were looking only at the records of they way the marriage
has historically been presented.

Thanks for clarifying this, Emmett.

Yes mar, they are variants of the same name, it is whom she was the
daughter of that is important here, regardless of her name, refer to above
again, a potential new avenue of records that may yield the clues we are
all so earnestly looking for.

Thanks again; I appreciate your having taken the time to clarify. I
had some time ago put the de Lancasters in my "to do later" tray,
naively thinking that this was a relatively uncontroversial line. I
see now that I know even less than I thought I did. The ongoing dialog
on this topic is interesting, if occasionally bewildering!

Kind regards

Michael Andrews-Reading

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»