The Liberate Rolls for King John's reign are published in "Rotuli de
Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, Regnante Johanne," by Sir T. D. Hardy.
On p. 49 of that work is a 1203 entry giving Wischard Leidet custody of the
mother of Richard Foliot, who was the paternal grandmother of Wischard's
wife. The entry is presumably transcribed as closely as possible to the way
it was written, for the Latin is much abbreviated and interspersed with
strange characters and diacritical marks. The name of the mother of Richard
Foliot is written as "Margar~ Foliot", with the tilde over the second "r".
The given name of Wischard's wife is written exactly the same way,
"Margar~".
William Farrer, in his respected 1923 work, "Honors and Knights' Fees"
summarizes this Liberate Roll entry as follows (2:383):
"...On 12 Jul 1203, Geoffrey Fitz-Piers was directed to deliver to Wischard
Leidet the wardship of Margaret Foliot, mother of Richard Foliot, father of
Wischard's wife Margery, and wardship of the said Margery's land, as the
said Richard had it, the said Wischard providing for Margaret the mother in
an honourable way during her life (5). This Margaret may have been a
Beauchamp of Eaton.
....5. 'R. de Liberate', 49."
Can any of you suggest Farrer's justification for differentiating the two
apparently identical given names in this way? Were Margareta and Margeria
both used by 1203?
Incidentally, Wischard's wife Margery/Margert was a granddaughter of
Margaret/Margery de Reinbuedcurt, wife of Robert Foliot and daughter of
Richard de Reinbuedcurt. Wouldn't Farrer have known this at the time he
wrote? If so, could he have been thinking of Margery Foliot's _mother_
rather than grandmother when he said "This Margaret may have been a
Beauchamp of Eaton"? Isn't it currently believed Margery Foliot's mother was
a Hastings, sister of William de Hastings? In "Earl David of Huntingdon" (K.
J. Stringer, Edinburgh, 1985) is this (p. 185):
"...Henry de Hastings (d. 1250)...The economic position of Henry's father
William had been precarious: in 1205 hehad petitioned King John for relief
from Jewish creditors...Henry's aunt had married the Huntingdon tenant
Richard Foliot, (d. by 1203)..." This is the same Henry de Hastings who
married Earl David's youngest daughter Ada.
Robert Forrest
Margery/Margaret Foliot/Reinbuedcurt
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Sutliff
Re: Margery/Margaret Foliot/Reinbuedcurt
Additional information which should be checked to see if there is anything
which can be added to help you are Clutterbuck III:58 and I believe
Keats-Rohan in DD (my notation says p. 47, but don't know if that is
accurate) identify Margaret's mother as Amabilis de Hastings of Little
Easton, Essex, daughter of William FitzRobert de Hastings and Helewise de
Guerres. Sanders in his English Baronies (Reinbuecurt) and Farrer in Feudal
Cambridgeshire also have mention of parts of this family. I note that Henry
Hastings d. 1250 was of the Fillongley, Warw. family so I wonder how valid
some of these other placements are. I may well be wrong, but I think
Stringer has confused two William Hastings. I am sure others will correct
any errors from this post.
Hap
""Robert Forrest"" <forrest@WHIDBEY.COM> wrote in message
news:000901c607f2$dc6d79c0$6400a8c0@presario...
which can be added to help you are Clutterbuck III:58 and I believe
Keats-Rohan in DD (my notation says p. 47, but don't know if that is
accurate) identify Margaret's mother as Amabilis de Hastings of Little
Easton, Essex, daughter of William FitzRobert de Hastings and Helewise de
Guerres. Sanders in his English Baronies (Reinbuecurt) and Farrer in Feudal
Cambridgeshire also have mention of parts of this family. I note that Henry
Hastings d. 1250 was of the Fillongley, Warw. family so I wonder how valid
some of these other placements are. I may well be wrong, but I think
Stringer has confused two William Hastings. I am sure others will correct
any errors from this post.
Hap
""Robert Forrest"" <forrest@WHIDBEY.COM> wrote in message
news:000901c607f2$dc6d79c0$6400a8c0@presario...
The Liberate Rolls for King John's reign are published in "Rotuli de
Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, Regnante Johanne," by Sir T. D. Hardy.
On p. 49 of that work is a 1203 entry giving Wischard Leidet custody of
the mother of Richard Foliot, who was the paternal grandmother of
Wischard's wife. The entry is presumably transcribed as closely as
possible to the way it was written, for the Latin is much abbreviated and
interspersed with strange characters and diacritical marks. The name of
the mother of Richard Foliot is written as "Margar~ Foliot", with the
tilde over the second "r". The given name of Wischard's wife is written
exactly the same way, "Margar~".
William Farrer, in his respected 1923 work, "Honors and Knights' Fees"
summarizes this Liberate Roll entry as follows (2:383):
"...On 12 Jul 1203, Geoffrey Fitz-Piers was directed to deliver to
Wischard Leidet the wardship of Margaret Foliot, mother of Richard Foliot,
father of Wischard's wife Margery, and wardship of the said Margery's
land, as the said Richard had it, the said Wischard providing for Margaret
the mother in an honourable way during her life (5). This Margaret may
have been a Beauchamp of Eaton.
...5. 'R. de Liberate', 49."
Can any of you suggest Farrer's justification for differentiating the two
apparently identical given names in this way? Were Margareta and Margeria
both used by 1203?
Incidentally, Wischard's wife Margery/Margert was a granddaughter of
Margaret/Margery de Reinbuedcurt, wife of Robert Foliot and daughter of
Richard de Reinbuedcurt. Wouldn't Farrer have known this at the time he
wrote? If so, could he have been thinking of Margery Foliot's _mother_
rather than grandmother when he said "This Margaret may have been a
Beauchamp of Eaton"? Isn't it currently believed Margery Foliot's mother
was a Hastings, sister of William de Hastings? In "Earl David of
Huntingdon" (K. J. Stringer, Edinburgh, 1985) is this (p. 185):
"...Henry de Hastings (d. 1250)...The economic position of Henry's father
William had been precarious: in 1205 hehad petitioned King John for relief
from Jewish creditors...Henry's aunt had married the Huntingdon tenant
Richard Foliot, (d. by 1203)..." This is the same Henry de Hastings who
married Earl David's youngest daughter Ada.
Robert Forrest
-
Gordon and Jane Kirkemo
RE: Margery/Margaret Foliot/Reinbuedcurt
Hap, Robert, et al:
I checked DD at Hap's suggestion. Page 47 contains a descendancy chart for
the Hastings. It includes William FitzRobert, but not Amabilis. However,
in the next on page 506 under the heading "de Hastings, Willelm" the
following can be found:
"Probably also the father of Amabilis de Hastings, sister of William and
wife successively of Richard fitz Robert Foliot and Ralph of Exeter (Cart.
Old Wardon, p. 326)."
I hope this is helpful.
Gordon Kirkemo
-----Original Message-----
From: Sutliff [mailto:suthen@redshift.com]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 11:42 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Margery/Margaret Foliot/Reinbuedcurt
Additional information which should be checked to see if there is anything
which can be added to help you are Clutterbuck III:58 and I believe
Keats-Rohan in DD (my notation says p. 47, but don't know if that is
accurate) identify Margaret's mother as Amabilis de Hastings of Little
Easton, Essex, daughter of William FitzRobert de Hastings and Helewise de
Guerres. Sanders in his English Baronies (Reinbuecurt) and Farrer in Feudal
Cambridgeshire also have mention of parts of this family. I note that Henry
Hastings d. 1250 was of the Fillongley, Warw. family so I wonder how valid
some of these other placements are. I may well be wrong, but I think
Stringer has confused two William Hastings. I am sure others will correct
any errors from this post.
Hap
""Robert Forrest"" <forrest@WHIDBEY.COM> wrote in message
news:000901c607f2$dc6d79c0$6400a8c0@presario...
I checked DD at Hap's suggestion. Page 47 contains a descendancy chart for
the Hastings. It includes William FitzRobert, but not Amabilis. However,
in the next on page 506 under the heading "de Hastings, Willelm" the
following can be found:
"Probably also the father of Amabilis de Hastings, sister of William and
wife successively of Richard fitz Robert Foliot and Ralph of Exeter (Cart.
Old Wardon, p. 326)."
I hope this is helpful.
Gordon Kirkemo
-----Original Message-----
From: Sutliff [mailto:suthen@redshift.com]
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 11:42 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Margery/Margaret Foliot/Reinbuedcurt
Additional information which should be checked to see if there is anything
which can be added to help you are Clutterbuck III:58 and I believe
Keats-Rohan in DD (my notation says p. 47, but don't know if that is
accurate) identify Margaret's mother as Amabilis de Hastings of Little
Easton, Essex, daughter of William FitzRobert de Hastings and Helewise de
Guerres. Sanders in his English Baronies (Reinbuecurt) and Farrer in Feudal
Cambridgeshire also have mention of parts of this family. I note that Henry
Hastings d. 1250 was of the Fillongley, Warw. family so I wonder how valid
some of these other placements are. I may well be wrong, but I think
Stringer has confused two William Hastings. I am sure others will correct
any errors from this post.
Hap
""Robert Forrest"" <forrest@WHIDBEY.COM> wrote in message
news:000901c607f2$dc6d79c0$6400a8c0@presario...
The Liberate Rolls for King John's reign are published in "Rotuli de
Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis, Regnante Johanne," by Sir T. D. Hardy.
On p. 49 of that work is a 1203 entry giving Wischard Leidet custody of
the mother of Richard Foliot, who was the paternal grandmother of
Wischard's wife. The entry is presumably transcribed as closely as
possible to the way it was written, for the Latin is much abbreviated and
interspersed with strange characters and diacritical marks. The name of
the mother of Richard Foliot is written as "Margar~ Foliot", with the
tilde over the second "r". The given name of Wischard's wife is written
exactly the same way, "Margar~".
William Farrer, in his respected 1923 work, "Honors and Knights' Fees"
summarizes this Liberate Roll entry as follows (2:383):
"...On 12 Jul 1203, Geoffrey Fitz-Piers was directed to deliver to
Wischard Leidet the wardship of Margaret Foliot, mother of Richard Foliot,
father of Wischard's wife Margery, and wardship of the said Margery's
land, as the said Richard had it, the said Wischard providing for Margaret
the mother in an honourable way during her life (5). This Margaret may
have been a Beauchamp of Eaton.
...5. 'R. de Liberate', 49."
Can any of you suggest Farrer's justification for differentiating the two
apparently identical given names in this way? Were Margareta and Margeria
both used by 1203?
Incidentally, Wischard's wife Margery/Margert was a granddaughter of
Margaret/Margery de Reinbuedcurt, wife of Robert Foliot and daughter of
Richard de Reinbuedcurt. Wouldn't Farrer have known this at the time he
wrote? If so, could he have been thinking of Margery Foliot's _mother_
rather than grandmother when he said "This Margaret may have been a
Beauchamp of Eaton"? Isn't it currently believed Margery Foliot's mother
was a Hastings, sister of William de Hastings? In "Earl David of
Huntingdon" (K. J. Stringer, Edinburgh, 1985) is this (p. 185):
"...Henry de Hastings (d. 1250)...The economic position of Henry's father
William had been precarious: in 1205 hehad petitioned King John for relief
from Jewish creditors...Henry's aunt had married the Huntingdon tenant
Richard Foliot, (d. by 1203)..." This is the same Henry de Hastings who
married Earl David's youngest daughter Ada.
Robert Forrest