Dear Newsgroup ~
Past discussions on the newsgroup have concerned the identity of
Margery, the first wife of Waleran (died 1204), 4th Earl of Warwick.
Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 364, footnote a (sub Warwick) shows
that Earl Waleran "made a grant to Pinley for the souls of Margery, his
wife, Roger, his father, Gundred, his mother, and Earl William, his
brother," citing Dugdale, Baronage, vol. 1, pg. 71. So, there can be
no question that Earl Waleran had a wife named Margery.
Margery's correct maiden name, d'Oilly, is indicated in a Flaxley Abbey
charter issued by Roger son of Ralph de Pultun, which charter evidently
dates sometime before 11 Henry III [1226-1227]. In the charter, the
said Roger makes a grant of five shillings of a rent of land for the
souls of William, Earl of Warwick (died 1184), and Countess Margaret de
Oilli, and for the health of their heirs, and for his health of his own
soul and that of his wife, Margaret, and his ancestors and heirs
[Reference: Arthur William Crawley-Boevey, The Cartulary and Historical
Notes of the Cistercian Abbey of Flaxley, otherwise called Dene Abbey
in the County of Gloucester (1887): 70, 144]. I might add that the
given names, Margery and Margaret, were completely interchangeable in
this time period.
Those who wish to examine the published transcript of Roger de Pultun's
charter may do so at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=3iqtyL ... -8&jtp=144
Further evidence proving Countess Margery/Margaret d'Oilly's maiden
name and parentage will be presented in a future article by me
scheduled for publication sometime later this year.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry. net
C.P. Addition: Margery/Margaret d'Oilly, wife of Waleran, 4t
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Chris Phillips
Re: C.P. Addition: Margery/Margaret d'Oilly, wife of Waleran
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Thank you for posting this interesting evidence. The reference to a Countess
Margaret de Oilli does seem to provide further support for Rosie Bevan's
correction of the Complete Peerage account of the early earls of Warwick:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/ ... shtml#p363
Rosie suggested that Margery, daughter of Henry de Oilly, was the wife of
Earl Waleran, not of Earl Waleran's son Henry.
However, as Will Johnson points out, it is strange that the charter mentions
Earl _William_ and Countess Margaret. The language reads to me as though a
husband and a wife are being referred to - particularly as their names are
followed by a reference to "their heirs".
It looks to me as though the less common name "Walerani" (probably in an
abbreviated form) has been miscopied into the cartulary as the more common
"Willelmi". Otherwise I'd find this evidence difficult to reconcile with the
revised scheme.
Chris Phillips
Past discussions on the newsgroup have concerned the identity of
Margery, the first wife of Waleran (died 1204), 4th Earl of Warwick.
Complete Peerage, 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 364, footnote a (sub Warwick) shows
that Earl Waleran "made a grant to Pinley for the souls of Margery, his
wife, Roger, his father, Gundred, his mother, and Earl William, his
brother," citing Dugdale, Baronage, vol. 1, pg. 71. So, there can be
no question that Earl Waleran had a wife named Margery.
Margery's correct maiden name, d'Oilly, is indicated in a Flaxley Abbey
charter issued by Roger son of Ralph de Pultun, which charter evidently
dates sometime before 11 Henry III [1226-1227]. In the charter, the
said Roger makes a grant of five shillings of a rent of land for the
souls of William, Earl of Warwick (died 1184), and Countess Margaret de
Oilli, and for the health of their heirs, and for his health of his own
soul and that of his wife, Margaret, and his ancestors and heirs
[Reference: Arthur William Crawley-Boevey, The Cartulary and Historical
Notes of the Cistercian Abbey of Flaxley, otherwise called Dene Abbey
in the County of Gloucester (1887): 70, 144]. I might add that the
given names, Margery and Margaret, were completely interchangeable in
this time period.
Thank you for posting this interesting evidence. The reference to a Countess
Margaret de Oilli does seem to provide further support for Rosie Bevan's
correction of the Complete Peerage account of the early earls of Warwick:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/ ... shtml#p363
Rosie suggested that Margery, daughter of Henry de Oilly, was the wife of
Earl Waleran, not of Earl Waleran's son Henry.
However, as Will Johnson points out, it is strange that the charter mentions
Earl _William_ and Countess Margaret. The language reads to me as though a
husband and a wife are being referred to - particularly as their names are
followed by a reference to "their heirs".
It looks to me as though the less common name "Walerani" (probably in an
abbreviated form) has been miscopied into the cartulary as the more common
"Willelmi". Otherwise I'd find this evidence difficult to reconcile with the
revised scheme.
Chris Phillips
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: C.P. Addition: Margery/Margaret d'Oilly, wife of Waleran
Dear Will ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I believe Roger de Pultun, the grantor of the Flaxley Abbey charter,
was a tenant of the Earls of Warwick. At the time of Roger's gift, his
former overlord, William, Earl of Warwick, was deceased, as was
Margaret d'Oilly, the wife of William's brother and heir, Earl Waleran.
Hence, Roger wished to remember the souls of Earl William and the
deceased wife of Earl William's surviving brother and Roger's current
overlord, Earl Waleran. In this case, the heirs of Earl William were
his brother, Earl Waleran, and Waleran's son, Henry [future 5th Earl of
Warwick], while the heir of Margaret d'Oilly was the same Henry, son of
Earl Waleran and Margaret. In short, the heirs of the two people named
in Roger's charter were essentially the same people. Given these
facts, I don't believe that the name, William, is a mistake for Waleran
at all. The two earls were completely different individuals. Any
tenant of the Earls of Warwick in this period would surely have known
this and not confused the earls or their wives in a public charter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 4/14/06 2:06:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
< cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<
< << It looks to me as though the less common name "Walerani" (probably
in an
< abbreviated form) has been miscopied into the cartulary as the more
common
< "Willelmi". Otherwise I'd find this evidence difficult to reconcile
with the
< revised scheme. >>
<
< William de Newburgh, 3rd Count of Warwick m Margaret de Oilly
< and then his nephew
< Henry de Newburgh, 5th Count of Warwick m Margery de Oilly
<
< perhaps. Not necessarily the same woman, but maybe an aunt and niece
< combination to match the uncle and nephew combination
<
< Will
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
I believe Roger de Pultun, the grantor of the Flaxley Abbey charter,
was a tenant of the Earls of Warwick. At the time of Roger's gift, his
former overlord, William, Earl of Warwick, was deceased, as was
Margaret d'Oilly, the wife of William's brother and heir, Earl Waleran.
Hence, Roger wished to remember the souls of Earl William and the
deceased wife of Earl William's surviving brother and Roger's current
overlord, Earl Waleran. In this case, the heirs of Earl William were
his brother, Earl Waleran, and Waleran's son, Henry [future 5th Earl of
Warwick], while the heir of Margaret d'Oilly was the same Henry, son of
Earl Waleran and Margaret. In short, the heirs of the two people named
in Roger's charter were essentially the same people. Given these
facts, I don't believe that the name, William, is a mistake for Waleran
at all. The two earls were completely different individuals. Any
tenant of the Earls of Warwick in this period would surely have known
this and not confused the earls or their wives in a public charter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
< In a message dated 4/14/06 2:06:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
< cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<
< << It looks to me as though the less common name "Walerani" (probably
in an
< abbreviated form) has been miscopied into the cartulary as the more
common
< "Willelmi". Otherwise I'd find this evidence difficult to reconcile
with the
< revised scheme. >>
<
< William de Newburgh, 3rd Count of Warwick m Margaret de Oilly
< and then his nephew
< Henry de Newburgh, 5th Count of Warwick m Margery de Oilly
<
< perhaps. Not necessarily the same woman, but maybe an aunt and niece
< combination to match the uncle and nephew combination
<
< Will
-
Chris Phillips
Re: C.P. Addition: Margery/Margaret d'Oilly, wife of Waleran
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Of course, I wasn't suggesting that William and Waleran were the same
person, or that the original grantor didn't know the earl's names. What I
suggested was that the name might have been miscopied into the cartulary,
which wasn't compiled until the mid-13th century - two or three generations
after the death of Earl William.
Perhaps it's possible, but that doesn't seem a natural reading of the
charter to me.
Unfortunately the charter is undated. If its date could be estimated from
the witnesses, perhaps it could be determined whether it was given before or
after Earl Waleran's death, which would settle the matter. Unfortunately the
witness list doesn't look promising.
Chris Phillips
Given these
facts, I don't believe that the name, William, is a mistake for Waleran
at all. The two earls were completely different individuals. Any
tenant of the Earls of Warwick in this period would surely have known
this and not confused the earls or their wives in a public charter.
Of course, I wasn't suggesting that William and Waleran were the same
person, or that the original grantor didn't know the earl's names. What I
suggested was that the name might have been miscopied into the cartulary,
which wasn't compiled until the mid-13th century - two or three generations
after the death of Earl William.
At the time of Roger's gift, his
former overlord, William, Earl of Warwick, was deceased, as was
Margaret d'Oilly, the wife of William's brother and heir, Earl Waleran.
Hence, Roger wished to remember the souls of Earl William and the
deceased wife of Earl William's surviving brother and Roger's current
overlord, Earl Waleran. In this case, the heirs of Earl William were
his brother, Earl Waleran, and Waleran's son, Henry [future 5th Earl of
Warwick], while the heir of Margaret d'Oilly was the same Henry, son of
Earl Waleran and Margaret. In short, the heirs of the two people named
in Roger's charter were essentially the same people.
Perhaps it's possible, but that doesn't seem a natural reading of the
charter to me.
Unfortunately the charter is undated. If its date could be estimated from
the witnesses, perhaps it could be determined whether it was given before or
after Earl Waleran's death, which would settle the matter. Unfortunately the
witness list doesn't look promising.
Chris Phillips