A one-line genealogist for the past several years and relative novice
to medieval genealogy, I need to check some of my thinking with those
of you who are far more learned in the subject.
Herbert de Rie and his wife Albareda de Preaux had four sons: Hubert
Jr., Adam, Ranulphus/Ralph, and Eudo (who became Eudo Dapifer). Okay,
they also had a daughter, but I don't care about her night now. Their
son Ralph was known as Ranulphus de Praers PRIOR to 1066. J. R.
Planch(whatever) relates the story about Ralph, Hubert Jr. and Adam
rescuing Duke William in his flight prior to 1066.
Now, here comes the part I need to check. The Battell Abbey Rolls list
Hubert de Rie and Hubert de Rie le Jeune (obviously father and junior),
one or two (depending on source) names that MIGHT be Adam de Rie, Edues
Dapifer Sire de Preaux (clearly brother Eudo) and Le Sire de Praeres
(Prous). It's my belief that this last name must refer to Ranulphus de
Praers -- is there any reason to believe otherwise? Anything wrong
with that assumption?
Next, J. R. Planch(whatever) in talking about the booty received by
these four sons refers to "Ralph, whom he had made Castellan of
Nottingham." Spiffy! Except it looks as if somebody else promptly
made off with our Castellan of Nottingham:
"William Peverel, one of the Conqueror's followers and castellan of
Nottingham, gave the church along with St Mary's and St Nicholas as
part of the endowment of the Cluniac Priory of Lenton, which he founded
between 1109 and 1114." [from Claves Regni, the on-line magazine of
St. Peter's Church, Nottingham]
Annoyed with this Peverel fellow for making off with my ancestor's
castle, I read all I could find about him. The Battell Abbey Rolls
include a Ranulf Peverel and a William Peverel. Most folks seem to
think William was the bastard son of Duke William because of all the
lands he received from the Invasion for no other discernible reason,
but there seems to be no other evidence for this conclusion. I can
also find no evidence that William Peverel left any heirs.
Ranulphus de Praers had two de Praers sons (presumably before the
Invasion) the eldest of which inherited the vil de Stoke -- a tiny
nothing little place in Cheshire except that I believe it sits right on
the Roseline. But Ranulphus' eldest de Stoke son (presumably after the
Invasion) was William de Stoke, knight.
What would get thrown at me [evidence? rotten tomatoes?] if I wanted
to speculate that Ranulphus de Praers was one and the same as Ranulf
Peverel, and that William de Stoke was one and the same as William
Peverel? There are several other factors suggestive of this
hypothesis, but I don't know what contrary evidence is out there. Does
anyone know who DID inherit all of William Peverel's lands?
Thanks as always,
Carol/Evergreen
Scholars Needed for Reality Check
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Scholars Needed for Reality Check
In message of 15 Jan, evergreen@Ltex.net wrote:
Amidst the deathly hush that has followed the current failures at
Rootsweb, the lack of any response has prompted me to a a couple of
pennies.
The real problem is what information you can rely on. Planché was in
his time (late 19th century) a respected genealogist but when he refers
to William Peverel as a Follower of the Conqueror, there are some later
opinions that are easy to follow up. The best on this subject is a
remarkably cheap booklet called "My Ancestor came with the Conqueror" by
Anthony Camp, sold by the English Society of Genealogists through
http://www.sog.org.uk/acatalog/SoG_Orde ... s_135.html
It is just over half-way down the display.
Camp writes that there is no evidence that William Peverel came with
the Conqueror. Nor is there any for Ranulf Peverel nor for any of the
Pre or Preaux.
Next the best book on people who are in Domesday is "Domesday People"
by K Keats-Rohan published 1999 by the Boydell Press. While this is
not cheap she give a short account of William Peverel (p.494), who was
indeed in Domesday, and of Ranulf Peverel (pp. 355-6) but not, that I
can find, any Hubert de Pre or Albreda de Preaux. Keats-Rohan relates
that William Peveral actually had descendants who inherited his lands
and many are to this day descended from him; however Ranulf does not
seem to have descendants beyond his daughter Maud who had no children.
There are a few Praeres in Keats-Rohan's successor book "Domesday
Descendants", pub Boydell in 2002; see pp. 649-650. They are in this
book because they are not in Domesday and usually because they lived
after the time of Domesday. With your interests it should be worth your
while asking your local library to get hold of both these books by
Keats-Rohan.
See also Rosie Bevan's corrections to Keats-Rohan's books on
http://fmg.ac/Projects/Domesday/
This site does not mean the books are no good but that the books are
considered so important that any fresh knowledge is sought out to keep
them up-to-date.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
A one-line genealogist for the past several years and relative novice
to medieval genealogy, I need to check some of my thinking with those
of you who are far more learned in the subject.
Herbert de Rie and his wife Albareda de Preaux had four sons: Hubert
Jr., Adam, Ranulphus/Ralph, and Eudo (who became Eudo Dapifer). Okay,
they also had a daughter, but I don't care about her night now. Their
son Ralph was known as Ranulphus de Praers PRIOR to 1066. J. R.
Planch(whatever) relates the story about Ralph, Hubert Jr. and Adam
rescuing Duke William in his flight prior to 1066.
Now, here comes the part I need to check. The Battell Abbey Rolls list
Hubert de Rie and Hubert de Rie le Jeune (obviously father and junior),
one or two (depending on source) names that MIGHT be Adam de Rie, Edues
Dapifer Sire de Preaux (clearly brother Eudo) and Le Sire de Praeres
(Prous). It's my belief that this last name must refer to Ranulphus de
Praers -- is there any reason to believe otherwise? Anything wrong
with that assumption?
Next, J. R. Planch(whatever) in talking about the booty received by
these four sons refers to "Ralph, whom he had made Castellan of
Nottingham." Spiffy! Except it looks as if somebody else promptly
made off with our Castellan of Nottingham:
"William Peverel, one of the Conqueror's followers and castellan of
Nottingham, gave the church along with St Mary's and St Nicholas as
part of the endowment of the Cluniac Priory of Lenton, which he founded
between 1109 and 1114." [from Claves Regni, the on-line magazine of
St. Peter's Church, Nottingham]
Annoyed with this Peverel fellow for making off with my ancestor's
castle, I read all I could find about him. The Battell Abbey Rolls
include a Ranulf Peverel and a William Peverel. Most folks seem to
think William was the bastard son of Duke William because of all the
lands he received from the Invasion for no other discernible reason,
but there seems to be no other evidence for this conclusion. I can
also find no evidence that William Peverel left any heirs.
Ranulphus de Praers had two de Praers sons (presumably before the
Invasion) the eldest of which inherited the vil de Stoke -- a tiny
nothing little place in Cheshire except that I believe it sits right on
the Roseline. But Ranulphus' eldest de Stoke son (presumably after the
Invasion) was William de Stoke, knight.
What would get thrown at me [evidence? rotten tomatoes?] if I wanted
to speculate that Ranulphus de Praers was one and the same as Ranulf
Peverel, and that William de Stoke was one and the same as William
Peverel? There are several other factors suggestive of this
hypothesis, but I don't know what contrary evidence is out there. Does
anyone know who DID inherit all of William Peverel's lands?
Thanks as always,
Carol/Evergreen
Amidst the deathly hush that has followed the current failures at
Rootsweb, the lack of any response has prompted me to a a couple of
pennies.
The real problem is what information you can rely on. Planché was in
his time (late 19th century) a respected genealogist but when he refers
to William Peverel as a Follower of the Conqueror, there are some later
opinions that are easy to follow up. The best on this subject is a
remarkably cheap booklet called "My Ancestor came with the Conqueror" by
Anthony Camp, sold by the English Society of Genealogists through
http://www.sog.org.uk/acatalog/SoG_Orde ... s_135.html
It is just over half-way down the display.
Camp writes that there is no evidence that William Peverel came with
the Conqueror. Nor is there any for Ranulf Peverel nor for any of the
Pre or Preaux.
Next the best book on people who are in Domesday is "Domesday People"
by K Keats-Rohan published 1999 by the Boydell Press. While this is
not cheap she give a short account of William Peverel (p.494), who was
indeed in Domesday, and of Ranulf Peverel (pp. 355-6) but not, that I
can find, any Hubert de Pre or Albreda de Preaux. Keats-Rohan relates
that William Peveral actually had descendants who inherited his lands
and many are to this day descended from him; however Ranulf does not
seem to have descendants beyond his daughter Maud who had no children.
There are a few Praeres in Keats-Rohan's successor book "Domesday
Descendants", pub Boydell in 2002; see pp. 649-650. They are in this
book because they are not in Domesday and usually because they lived
after the time of Domesday. With your interests it should be worth your
while asking your local library to get hold of both these books by
Keats-Rohan.
See also Rosie Bevan's corrections to Keats-Rohan's books on
http://fmg.ac/Projects/Domesday/
This site does not mean the books are no good but that the books are
considered so important that any fresh knowledge is sought out to keep
them up-to-date.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Scholars Needed for Reality Check
Carol/Evergreen wrote:
I'd add a few more notes of caution, in addition to what Tim Powys-Lybbe has
said.
The Battle Abbey Rolls are compilations from some centuries later than the
Norman Conquest - far too late to be reliable - so it would be better to
ignore this source altogether.
I would also be suspicious about this identification of Ranulph as "de
Praers". Planché mentions a suggestion that "de Praels" refers to Eudo's
holding of Préaux, but according to Keats-Rohan the people known as "de
Praeres" came from a different place - Presles, in the canton of Vassy,
Calvados. So there may have been some confusion of similar-sounding names
here.
The Peverels of Nottingham are discussed by G. W. Watson in Complete
Peerage, vol.4, Appendix I. Watson says that William Peverel was given
custody of Nottingham Castle when it was built in 1068, and that the family
held the castle until they were dispossessed in the 1150s (apart from a
brief forfeiture early in the reign of Stephen - c. 1140).
So Planché's statement about Ralph being made castellan of Nottingham is
problematical, and he does refer to his source - a history of the foundation
of St. Peter's, Colchester - as "rather apocryphal".
Watson's account dismisses the claim that William Peverel was an
illegitimate son of William I, as there is no mention of this before Tudor
times. William was succeeded by his son William, and although the family
lost their possessions their heirs were the Ferrers earls of Derby.
Keats-Rohan also says that there is no evidence of a relationship between
the Domesday tenants Ranulf and William Peverel, though she thinks they were
probably related somehow.
Chris Phillips
A one-line genealogist for the past several years and relative novice
to medieval genealogy, I need to check some of my thinking with those
of you who are far more learned in the subject.
I'd add a few more notes of caution, in addition to what Tim Powys-Lybbe has
said.
The Battle Abbey Rolls are compilations from some centuries later than the
Norman Conquest - far too late to be reliable - so it would be better to
ignore this source altogether.
Herbert de Rie and his wife Albareda de Preaux had four sons: Hubert
Jr., Adam, Ranulphus/Ralph, and Eudo (who became Eudo Dapifer). Okay,
they also had a daughter, but I don't care about her night now. Their
son Ralph was known as Ranulphus de Praers PRIOR to 1066. J. R.
Planch(whatever) relates the story about Ralph, Hubert Jr. and Adam
rescuing Duke William in his flight prior to 1066.
Now, here comes the part I need to check. The Battell Abbey Rolls list
Hubert de Rie and Hubert de Rie le Jeune (obviously father and junior),
one or two (depending on source) names that MIGHT be Adam de Rie, Edues
Dapifer Sire de Preaux (clearly brother Eudo) and Le Sire de Praeres
(Prous). It's my belief that this last name must refer to Ranulphus de
Praers -- is there any reason to believe otherwise? Anything wrong
with that assumption?
I would also be suspicious about this identification of Ranulph as "de
Praers". Planché mentions a suggestion that "de Praels" refers to Eudo's
holding of Préaux, but according to Keats-Rohan the people known as "de
Praeres" came from a different place - Presles, in the canton of Vassy,
Calvados. So there may have been some confusion of similar-sounding names
here.
Next, J. R. Planch(whatever) in talking about the booty received by
these four sons refers to "Ralph, whom he had made Castellan of
Nottingham." Spiffy! Except it looks as if somebody else promptly
made off with our Castellan of Nottingham:
"William Peverel, one of the Conqueror's followers and castellan of
Nottingham, gave the church along with St Mary's and St Nicholas as
part of the endowment of the Cluniac Priory of Lenton, which he founded
between 1109 and 1114." [from Claves Regni, the on-line magazine of
St. Peter's Church, Nottingham]
The Peverels of Nottingham are discussed by G. W. Watson in Complete
Peerage, vol.4, Appendix I. Watson says that William Peverel was given
custody of Nottingham Castle when it was built in 1068, and that the family
held the castle until they were dispossessed in the 1150s (apart from a
brief forfeiture early in the reign of Stephen - c. 1140).
So Planché's statement about Ralph being made castellan of Nottingham is
problematical, and he does refer to his source - a history of the foundation
of St. Peter's, Colchester - as "rather apocryphal".
Annoyed with this Peverel fellow for making off with my ancestor's
castle, I read all I could find about him. The Battell Abbey Rolls
include a Ranulf Peverel and a William Peverel. Most folks seem to
think William was the bastard son of Duke William because of all the
lands he received from the Invasion for no other discernible reason,
but there seems to be no other evidence for this conclusion. I can
also find no evidence that William Peverel left any heirs.
Watson's account dismisses the claim that William Peverel was an
illegitimate son of William I, as there is no mention of this before Tudor
times. William was succeeded by his son William, and although the family
lost their possessions their heirs were the Ferrers earls of Derby.
Keats-Rohan also says that there is no evidence of a relationship between
the Domesday tenants Ranulf and William Peverel, though she thinks they were
probably related somehow.
Chris Phillips
-
Carol Stokes
Re: Scholars Needed for Reality Check
Tim and Chris,
Thank you both so much for taking the time to give me those extremely
helpful and comprehensive responses.
Well phooey. Guess I'll have to give up on making my Ranulphus the same
as Ranulf Peverel. <G>
My basic problem -- created innocently by myself before I realized how
incredibly difficult it is to trace medieval land holdings and names --
is that Ranulphus de Praers seems to DISAPPEAR after the Invasion.
After some reference to him as Ranulphus de Praers lord of the vil of
Stoke, I don't believe his name ever appears again anywhere in British
history -- not in Domesday, of which his brother Adam was one of the
compilers, and not in any records I can find.
That would be okay -- after all, people do sometimes die without heirs
or otherwise disappear from history -- except that several Stokes lines
trace their descent from him, and there are indeed records of his six
sons, all of whom appear relatively affluent. There are some
DePraers/Priers descendants of #1 son Richard de Praers in Shropshire,
but these don't interest me. The one I really want is son William fitz
Ranulf, or William de Stoke, knight, who married too well to have been
the son of a potatoe farmer. Ranulphus must have had SOME holdings
SOMEWHERE.
I will eagerly pursue the references you suggested and report back if I
find anything of interest. I'm well aware that many gross errors have
occured in genealogy, but I don't know of anyone who was completely
invented out of thin air!
Oh, and I'm out of the loop -- what was the big bruhaha at Rootsweb? I
haven't paid much attention to that place in a long time since they
refused to help me take down some pages that are WAY out of date.
Thanks again for all your help,
Carol Stokes
--
Sent via Genealogy Newsgroups
http://www.genealogynewsgroups.com
Thank you both so much for taking the time to give me those extremely
helpful and comprehensive responses.
Well phooey. Guess I'll have to give up on making my Ranulphus the same
as Ranulf Peverel. <G>
My basic problem -- created innocently by myself before I realized how
incredibly difficult it is to trace medieval land holdings and names --
is that Ranulphus de Praers seems to DISAPPEAR after the Invasion.
After some reference to him as Ranulphus de Praers lord of the vil of
Stoke, I don't believe his name ever appears again anywhere in British
history -- not in Domesday, of which his brother Adam was one of the
compilers, and not in any records I can find.
That would be okay -- after all, people do sometimes die without heirs
or otherwise disappear from history -- except that several Stokes lines
trace their descent from him, and there are indeed records of his six
sons, all of whom appear relatively affluent. There are some
DePraers/Priers descendants of #1 son Richard de Praers in Shropshire,
but these don't interest me. The one I really want is son William fitz
Ranulf, or William de Stoke, knight, who married too well to have been
the son of a potatoe farmer. Ranulphus must have had SOME holdings
SOMEWHERE.
I will eagerly pursue the references you suggested and report back if I
find anything of interest. I'm well aware that many gross errors have
occured in genealogy, but I don't know of anyone who was completely
invented out of thin air!
Oh, and I'm out of the loop -- what was the big bruhaha at Rootsweb? I
haven't paid much attention to that place in a long time since they
refused to help me take down some pages that are WAY out of date.
Thanks again for all your help,
Carol Stokes
--
Sent via Genealogy Newsgroups
http://www.genealogynewsgroups.com