Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Ro
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz Ro
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub FitzWalter) identified Ida, wife
of Walter Fitz Robert, as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl of
Salisbury." Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, has
traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found in
Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children of
William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:
"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
It is not known exactly why Ida Longespée is styled Ida de Camyle in
this record. I've assumed, however, that Ida may have had a brief
Camville marriage previous to her known marriage to Walter Fitz
Robert. If so, a previous Camvillle marriage would explain her use of
the Camville surname as a grown adult. Ida's older brother, William
Longespée II, is known, for example, to have married a member of the
Camville family.
Be that as it may, I recently came across new evidence which proves
that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was in fact a Longespée. The
book, List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and Exchequer,
contains an abstract of a letter dated 1261-1263 from Ida, widow of
Walter Fitz Robert, written to Walter de Merton, the king's
chancellor, in which Ida specifically styles herself Ida Longespée:
"152. Ida Longespée, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, to the same [Walter
de Merton, Chancellor]: to bail two of her men appealed of homicide.
[1261-1263]." [Reference: List of Ancient Corr. of the Chancery and
Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 107-108].
The above record was somehow overlooked by Complete Peerage in its
account of the Fitz Walter family.
For interest's sake, I've copied below two of my earlier posts in
which I discuss the evidence that Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, was a full sister to the second Ida Longespée, wife of William
de Beauchamp.
As always, comments are welcome.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +
MESSAGE #1:
Message from discussion Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
Date: 9 Sep 2002 02:03:43 -0700
Dear Newsgroup ~
A while back, I posted evidence which indicates that William Longespee
(bastard son of King Henry II) had two daughters named Ida, one who
married William de Beauchamp, Baron of Bedford, co. Bedford, the other
who married Walter Fitz Robert, Baron of Little Dunmow, Essex. The
evidence for the first Ida consists of a fine recorded in Essex in
which William Longespee is specifically called that Ida's father.
The evidence for the second Ida involves chronology and the pedigree
of the Longespee family recorded in the records of Lacock Abbey, which
abbey was founded by Earl William's widow, Ela.
In a post today, I stated that the chronology of the family of the
second Ida'a son-in-law, Sir William de Oddingseles, suggests that he
was born say 1230/5. This birthdate for Sir William is entirely
consistent with his wife, Ela, being a granddaughter of Earl William
Longespee.
Tonight I located another piece of evidence which similarly places
Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, in the generation of William
Longespee's children. According to the Patent Rolls, I learned that
following her husband, Walter Fitz Robert's death in 1258, his "men,
lands and goods" were committed to William de Aette, which William was
also one of the executors for the will of Ida's brother, Sir Stephen
Longespee, who died in 1260 [References: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1258-1262 (1910), pg. 209; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1259-1261 (1934), pg.
79].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
MESSAGE #2:
Message from discussion Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
Date: 14 Sep 2002 22:52:37 -0700
Dear Adrian, John, etc. ~
One way to examine the plausibility of the two Ida Longespee's being
sisters is to check the history of their descendants to see if the
chronology of their descendants is similar or dissimilar. If the two
women were sisters, one would expect the dates of their descendants to
be in sync with each other.
I took the time to check the chronology of the descendants of this two
Ida's this past week. For purposes of simplicity, I will call the
elder Ida (wife of William de Beauchamp) Ida I, and the younger Ida
(wife of Walter Fitz Robert) Ida II.
What I discovered was basically that the descendants of the two women
were basically in sync with one another. Ida I had three known
daughters, Maud, Beatrice, and Ela. Tracing the descendants of the
three daughters out to their grandchildren, we find Maud's grandson
and heir, John Mowbray, was born in 1286. Beatrice's grandson, Thomas
Botetourt, was born say 1290. Ela's eldest grandchild was Isabel (or
Elizabeth) Stonegrave, born 1271/3.
As for Ida II, she had two known children who left descendants, Ela
and Robert. Ela's daughter Ida de Oddingseles had her eldest child,
Ela de Herdeburgh, born say 1284/1286. Ela's younger daughter,
Margaret, had her eldest son and heir, John de Grey, born in 1300.
Robert Fitz Walter had his eldest surviving grandchild, Hawise
Marshal, born say 1300.
Comparing the descendants of the two women, my guess is that the
descendants of the younger Ida (Ida II) are running perhaps ten years
after the descendants of the elder Ida (Ida I). This would certainly
be pretty much what we would expect if the two women were sisters.
Interestingly, I find the chronology of the descendants of the two
Ida's dovetails nicely with the chronology of the descendants of their
brother, Stephen Longespee. Stephen had one daughter, Ela, who left
issue. Ela's two granddaughters and co-heiresses were Ellen and Maud
la Zouche, who were born in 1288 and 1290 respectively.
In sharp contrast, however, the chronology of the descendants of the
one known niece of the two Ida's and Stephen, namely Ela de Audley, is
running a full generation after the descendants of the two Ida's and
Stephen. Ela de Audley has two known grandchildren (not great-
grandchildren) born about 1289. Again, this is what one would expect
when comparing the chronology of the descendants of a niece against
those of her aunts and uncle.
I must point out the when examining "out" generations that you are
dealing with averages. Averages can and should only be taken as
indicators. Having said that, it appears in this case the averages
"indicate" the two Ida's were full sisters.
The 85 year rule of thumb for 3 generations can also be used to
suggest an approximate birthdate of the two Ida's. If we add the
three birthdates of Ida I's three great-children, divide by three, and
subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida I of 1198. If we add
the three birthdates of Ida II's three great-grandchildren, divide by
three, and subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida No. 2 of
1210. Or, in other words, we have approximately 12 years separating
the two Ida's based on the chronology of their descendants.
I usually use 28 years for a generation in the medieval period. In
this case, 12 years is less than half a generation's difference. For
this reason, I conclude the two Ida's were probably full sisters to
one another.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub FitzWalter) identified Ida, wife
of Walter Fitz Robert, as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl of
Salisbury." Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, has
traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found in
Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children of
William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:
"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
It is not known exactly why Ida Longespée is styled Ida de Camyle in
this record. I've assumed, however, that Ida may have had a brief
Camville marriage previous to her known marriage to Walter Fitz
Robert. If so, a previous Camvillle marriage would explain her use of
the Camville surname as a grown adult. Ida's older brother, William
Longespée II, is known, for example, to have married a member of the
Camville family.
Be that as it may, I recently came across new evidence which proves
that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, was in fact a Longespée. The
book, List of Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and Exchequer,
contains an abstract of a letter dated 1261-1263 from Ida, widow of
Walter Fitz Robert, written to Walter de Merton, the king's
chancellor, in which Ida specifically styles herself Ida Longespée:
"152. Ida Longespée, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, to the same [Walter
de Merton, Chancellor]: to bail two of her men appealed of homicide.
[1261-1263]." [Reference: List of Ancient Corr. of the Chancery and
Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 107-108].
The above record was somehow overlooked by Complete Peerage in its
account of the Fitz Walter family.
For interest's sake, I've copied below two of my earlier posts in
which I discuss the evidence that Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, was a full sister to the second Ida Longespée, wife of William
de Beauchamp.
As always, comments are welcome.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +
MESSAGE #1:
Message from discussion Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
Date: 9 Sep 2002 02:03:43 -0700
Dear Newsgroup ~
A while back, I posted evidence which indicates that William Longespee
(bastard son of King Henry II) had two daughters named Ida, one who
married William de Beauchamp, Baron of Bedford, co. Bedford, the other
who married Walter Fitz Robert, Baron of Little Dunmow, Essex. The
evidence for the first Ida consists of a fine recorded in Essex in
which William Longespee is specifically called that Ida's father.
The evidence for the second Ida involves chronology and the pedigree
of the Longespee family recorded in the records of Lacock Abbey, which
abbey was founded by Earl William's widow, Ela.
In a post today, I stated that the chronology of the family of the
second Ida'a son-in-law, Sir William de Oddingseles, suggests that he
was born say 1230/5. This birthdate for Sir William is entirely
consistent with his wife, Ela, being a granddaughter of Earl William
Longespee.
Tonight I located another piece of evidence which similarly places
Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, in the generation of William
Longespee's children. According to the Patent Rolls, I learned that
following her husband, Walter Fitz Robert's death in 1258, his "men,
lands and goods" were committed to William de Aette, which William was
also one of the executors for the will of Ida's brother, Sir Stephen
Longespee, who died in 1260 [References: Calendar of Patent Rolls,
1258-1262 (1910), pg. 209; Cal. of Close Rolls, 1259-1261 (1934), pg.
79].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
MESSAGE #2:
Message from discussion Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
From: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Re: Two Ida Longespee's: Same Generation
Date: 14 Sep 2002 22:52:37 -0700
Dear Adrian, John, etc. ~
One way to examine the plausibility of the two Ida Longespee's being
sisters is to check the history of their descendants to see if the
chronology of their descendants is similar or dissimilar. If the two
women were sisters, one would expect the dates of their descendants to
be in sync with each other.
I took the time to check the chronology of the descendants of this two
Ida's this past week. For purposes of simplicity, I will call the
elder Ida (wife of William de Beauchamp) Ida I, and the younger Ida
(wife of Walter Fitz Robert) Ida II.
What I discovered was basically that the descendants of the two women
were basically in sync with one another. Ida I had three known
daughters, Maud, Beatrice, and Ela. Tracing the descendants of the
three daughters out to their grandchildren, we find Maud's grandson
and heir, John Mowbray, was born in 1286. Beatrice's grandson, Thomas
Botetourt, was born say 1290. Ela's eldest grandchild was Isabel (or
Elizabeth) Stonegrave, born 1271/3.
As for Ida II, she had two known children who left descendants, Ela
and Robert. Ela's daughter Ida de Oddingseles had her eldest child,
Ela de Herdeburgh, born say 1284/1286. Ela's younger daughter,
Margaret, had her eldest son and heir, John de Grey, born in 1300.
Robert Fitz Walter had his eldest surviving grandchild, Hawise
Marshal, born say 1300.
Comparing the descendants of the two women, my guess is that the
descendants of the younger Ida (Ida II) are running perhaps ten years
after the descendants of the elder Ida (Ida I). This would certainly
be pretty much what we would expect if the two women were sisters.
Interestingly, I find the chronology of the descendants of the two
Ida's dovetails nicely with the chronology of the descendants of their
brother, Stephen Longespee. Stephen had one daughter, Ela, who left
issue. Ela's two granddaughters and co-heiresses were Ellen and Maud
la Zouche, who were born in 1288 and 1290 respectively.
In sharp contrast, however, the chronology of the descendants of the
one known niece of the two Ida's and Stephen, namely Ela de Audley, is
running a full generation after the descendants of the two Ida's and
Stephen. Ela de Audley has two known grandchildren (not great-
grandchildren) born about 1289. Again, this is what one would expect
when comparing the chronology of the descendants of a niece against
those of her aunts and uncle.
I must point out the when examining "out" generations that you are
dealing with averages. Averages can and should only be taken as
indicators. Having said that, it appears in this case the averages
"indicate" the two Ida's were full sisters.
The 85 year rule of thumb for 3 generations can also be used to
suggest an approximate birthdate of the two Ida's. If we add the
three birthdates of Ida I's three great-children, divide by three, and
subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida I of 1198. If we add
the three birthdates of Ida II's three great-grandchildren, divide by
three, and subtract 85, we have an indicated birth for Ida No. 2 of
1210. Or, in other words, we have approximately 12 years separating
the two Ida's based on the chronology of their descendants.
I usually use 28 years for a generation in the medieval period. In
this case, 12 years is less than half a generation's difference. For
this reason, I conclude the two Ida's were probably full sisters to
one another.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 23 Mai, 16:04, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
PS It is worth noting that while the document quoted does contain a
list of the children of the elder William Longespee, it is apparently
not confined to being such a list - Ela wife of William Oddingseles,
for instance, was certainly not his daughter, nor is it stated that
Ida 'de Camyle' was.
To say that Ida was the elder Longespee's daughter because she is
included in this document, and simultaneously to say that the document
lists the elder Longespee's children on the basis of Ida's inclusion
in it, is an extraordinarily circular argument.
MA-R
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub FitzWalter) identified Ida, wife
of Walter Fitz Robert, as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl of
Salisbury." Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, has
traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found in
Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children of
William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:
"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
PS It is worth noting that while the document quoted does contain a
list of the children of the elder William Longespee, it is apparently
not confined to being such a list - Ela wife of William Oddingseles,
for instance, was certainly not his daughter, nor is it stated that
Ida 'de Camyle' was.
To say that Ida was the elder Longespee's daughter because she is
included in this document, and simultaneously to say that the document
lists the elder Longespee's children on the basis of Ida's inclusion
in it, is an extraordinarily circular argument.
MA-R
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
Dear Newsgroup ~
As we saw in my earlier post yesterday, Ida, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, employed the surname Longespée in her letter to the king's
chancellor. There was no use of the "pseudo" surname of "de Camyle,"
which name was assigned to her in the Longespée family pedigree in the
Lacock cartulary. To date, in fact, we have no evidence that Ida ever
use the name Camyle, but we now have evidence that Ida used the name
Longespée. This is an important discovery.
A careful review of the evidence (family associations, chronology,
onomastics, Ida's letter, etc.) indicates that Ida Longespée, wife of
Walter Fitz Robert, was the daughter of William Longespée I (died
1226), by his wife, Ela of Salisbury.
For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descent from Ida Longespee, wife of
Walter Fitz Robert. The list includes Margaret Touteville, wife of
Rev. Thomas Shepard, whose royal connections were located this past
year.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, William Asfordby, Christopher Batt,
Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George &
Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier,
George & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Nathaniel Browne, Obadiah
Bruen, Stephen Bull, Elizabeth Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward
Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew
Clarkson, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie,
Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley,
William Farrar, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Muriel Gurdon, Katherine
Hamby, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey,
Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Nathaniel Littleton, Henry,
Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Symon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas
Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury,
Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John Nelson, Philip
& Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert
Pelham, Robert Peyton, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint
Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith,
Mary Johanna Somerset, James Taylor, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret
Touteville, Olive Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Thomas Yale.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
As we saw in my earlier post yesterday, Ida, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, employed the surname Longespée in her letter to the king's
chancellor. There was no use of the "pseudo" surname of "de Camyle,"
which name was assigned to her in the Longespée family pedigree in the
Lacock cartulary. To date, in fact, we have no evidence that Ida ever
use the name Camyle, but we now have evidence that Ida used the name
Longespée. This is an important discovery.
A careful review of the evidence (family associations, chronology,
onomastics, Ida's letter, etc.) indicates that Ida Longespée, wife of
Walter Fitz Robert, was the daughter of William Longespée I (died
1226), by his wife, Ela of Salisbury.
For interest's sake, I've listed below the names of the numerous 17th
Century New World immigrants who descent from Ida Longespee, wife of
Walter Fitz Robert. The list includes Margaret Touteville, wife of
Rev. Thomas Shepard, whose royal connections were located this past
year.
Robert Abell, Dannett Abney, William Asfordby, Christopher Batt,
Henry, Thomas & William Batte, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George &
Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier,
George & Robert Brent, Thomas Bressey, Nathaniel Browne, Obadiah
Bruen, Stephen Bull, Elizabeth Butler, Charles Calvert, Edward
Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, Matthew
Clarkson, St. Leger Codd, Henry Corbin, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie,
Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward Digges, Thomas Dudley,
William Farrar, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Muriel Gurdon, Katherine
Hamby, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey,
Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Nathaniel Littleton, Henry,
Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Symon Lynde, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas
Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury,
Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need, John Nelson, Philip
& Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Herbert
Pelham, Robert Peyton, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint
Leger, Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith,
Mary Johanna Somerset, James Taylor, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret
Touteville, Olive Welby, John West, Thomas Wingfield, Thomas Yale.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On May 24, 2:53 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
I agree - this is an important and interesting discovery, and I do not
wish to underplay its usefulness. I am still surprised, though, that
you continue to fail to address any of the issues raised in relation
to your claims about its significance: why would you wish to shy away
from discussion of your suppositions? An experienced researcher such
as yourself should know that the mere repetition of faulty assertions
does not transmute them into facts, and should not fear debate about
his interpretations, if they are reasonable and logical.
The problem here is that family associations, onomastics, Ida's
letter, etc - even chronology - do not provide any effective
assistance whatsoever in answering the important question, viz "Was
Ida the sister or daughter of the younger William Longespee?" The
suggestion made in 2002 that the apparent reference to Camville is
indicative of Ida's place as a daughter of William the younger seems a
logical one to me, as does the assumption that a niece of the same
name is more likely than a sister of the same name (although we know
that the latter is merely rare, not impossible). Thus, while we may
have theories about Ida's place in the Longespee family, the lack of
clear evidence means that it cannot be asserted as a fact. The public
presentation of suppositions as facts is bad genealogy, and has a
tendency to pollute the public record with unsound material -
something I am sure you agree is undesirable.
If I am missing something, I am more than happy to have it explained
to me.
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
As we saw in my earlier post yesterday, Ida, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, employed the surname Longespée in her letter to the king's
chancellor. There was no use of the "pseudo" surname of "de Camyle,"
which name was assigned to her in the Longespée family pedigree in the
Lacock cartulary. To date, in fact, we have no evidence that Ida ever
use the name Camyle, but we now have evidence that Ida used the name
Longespée. This is an important discovery.
A careful review of the evidence (family associations, chronology,
onomastics, Ida's letter, etc.) indicates that Ida Longespée, wife of
Walter Fitz Robert, was the daughter of William Longespée I (died
1226), by his wife, Ela of Salisbury.
Dear Douglas
I agree - this is an important and interesting discovery, and I do not
wish to underplay its usefulness. I am still surprised, though, that
you continue to fail to address any of the issues raised in relation
to your claims about its significance: why would you wish to shy away
from discussion of your suppositions? An experienced researcher such
as yourself should know that the mere repetition of faulty assertions
does not transmute them into facts, and should not fear debate about
his interpretations, if they are reasonable and logical.
The problem here is that family associations, onomastics, Ida's
letter, etc - even chronology - do not provide any effective
assistance whatsoever in answering the important question, viz "Was
Ida the sister or daughter of the younger William Longespee?" The
suggestion made in 2002 that the apparent reference to Camville is
indicative of Ida's place as a daughter of William the younger seems a
logical one to me, as does the assumption that a niece of the same
name is more likely than a sister of the same name (although we know
that the latter is merely rare, not impossible). Thus, while we may
have theories about Ida's place in the Longespee family, the lack of
clear evidence means that it cannot be asserted as a fact. The public
presentation of suppositions as facts is bad genealogy, and has a
tendency to pollute the public record with unsound material -
something I am sure you agree is undesirable.
If I am missing something, I am more than happy to have it explained
to me.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
Dear Newsgroup ~
The Lacock Priory pedigree places Ida Longespee, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, as the daughter of William Longespee I. To date I've found no
serious evidence to refute that statement. Rather, the evidence I've
seen so far indicates that Ida was the daughter of William Longespee
I, just as stated in the Lacock pedigree. This is all the more true
now that it has been established by contemporary evidence that Ida
used Longespee, as her surname, not Camyle or Camville.
Regardless, if someone possesses credible evidence proving that this
Ida Longespee belongs in a later generation, I'd very much like to see
it. When replying, please state your evidence and provide your
sources. Thank you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The Lacock Priory pedigree places Ida Longespee, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, as the daughter of William Longespee I. To date I've found no
serious evidence to refute that statement. Rather, the evidence I've
seen so far indicates that Ida was the daughter of William Longespee
I, just as stated in the Lacock pedigree. This is all the more true
now that it has been established by contemporary evidence that Ida
used Longespee, as her surname, not Camyle or Camville.
Regardless, if someone possesses credible evidence proving that this
Ida Longespee belongs in a later generation, I'd very much like to see
it. When replying, please state your evidence and provide your
sources. Thank you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
Douglas
Surely the point you are ignoring is that the Lacock pedigree is inherently
unreliable as a source of information. Firstly, as you say, Ida used
Longspee as a surname so the use of Ida de Camyle in the Lacock document
suggests an unfamiliarity with the people mentioned. Secondly, preceding Ida
on the list is Ela, married to the earl of Warwick, and after Ida comes Ela,
married to William "de Dodingseles". Are you suggesting that both Ela's are
sisters too? And if not, why do you choose a different view about Ida?
Tailoring your interpretations to fit a theory is poor scholarship, is it
not?
Your view that a supposition becomes fact if it cannot be proved false leads
to the promotion of speculative genealogies as if they were real!
There is no evidence that there were two sisters called Ida. There is merely
a possibility. To many people the other possibilities, though unproven, look
more likely.
Doug Thompson
On 24/5/07 16:54, in article
1180022085.952233.112450@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, "Douglas Richardson"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Surely the point you are ignoring is that the Lacock pedigree is inherently
unreliable as a source of information. Firstly, as you say, Ida used
Longspee as a surname so the use of Ida de Camyle in the Lacock document
suggests an unfamiliarity with the people mentioned. Secondly, preceding Ida
on the list is Ela, married to the earl of Warwick, and after Ida comes Ela,
married to William "de Dodingseles". Are you suggesting that both Ela's are
sisters too? And if not, why do you choose a different view about Ida?
Tailoring your interpretations to fit a theory is poor scholarship, is it
not?
Your view that a supposition becomes fact if it cannot be proved false leads
to the promotion of speculative genealogies as if they were real!
There is no evidence that there were two sisters called Ida. There is merely
a possibility. To many people the other possibilities, though unproven, look
more likely.
Doug Thompson
On 24/5/07 16:54, in article
1180022085.952233.112450@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, "Douglas Richardson"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
The Lacock Priory pedigree places Ida Longespee, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, as the daughter of William Longespee I. To date I've found no
serious evidence to refute that statement. Rather, the evidence I've
seen so far indicates that Ida was the daughter of William Longespee
I, just as stated in the Lacock pedigree. This is all the more true
now that it has been established by contemporary evidence that Ida
used Longespee, as her surname, not Camyle or Camville.
Regardless, if someone possesses credible evidence proving that this
Ida Longespee belongs in a later generation, I'd very much like to see
it. When replying, please state your evidence and provide your
sources. Thank you.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 24 Mai, 16:54, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
That's your interpretation. As has been posted here many times in the
past five years, there are others.
This is a specious argument: if she were the daughter of the younger
William Longespee rather than the elder, her surname would still have
been Longespee.
I've outlined the weakness of your case by reference to logic; I'm
afraid that will have to do.
You're very welcome.
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
The Lacock Priory pedigree places Ida Longespee, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, as the daughter of William Longespee I.
That's your interpretation. As has been posted here many times in the
past five years, there are others.
To date I've found no
serious evidence to refute that statement. Rather, the evidence I've
seen so far indicates that Ida was the daughter of William Longespee
I, just as stated in the Lacock pedigree. This is all the more true
now that it has been established by contemporary evidence that Ida
used Longespee, as her surname, not Camyle or Camville.
This is a specious argument: if she were the daughter of the younger
William Longespee rather than the elder, her surname would still have
been Longespee.
Regardless, if someone possesses credible evidence proving that this
Ida Longespee belongs in a later generation, I'd very much like to see
it. When replying, please state your evidence and provide your
sources.
I've outlined the weakness of your case by reference to logic; I'm
afraid that will have to do.
Thank you.
You're very welcome.
Best wishes, Michael
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
Dear Doug ~
The evidence I've seen so far suggests that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, was the daughter of William Longespee I, just as stated in the
Lacock pedigree. The fact that Ida didn't use the name Camyle is an
important new piece of evidence. This seriously undercuts the
alternative theory that this Ida belongs to the next generation.
If the sticking point for you is that there were two Ida's who were
sisters, you need to get over that fast. Parents in the medieval
period and even later occasonally had two children of the same name.
This may shock modern sensibilities, but then so do child marriages
like the one I posted on last week involving Gilbert Talbot and Joan
of Gloucester. Gilbert and Joan were 6 and 4 years old respectively
when their parents arranged their marriage. Modern people are made
very uncomfortable with such social customs.
All the same, if you possess credible evidence proving that this Ida
Longespee belongs in a later generation, by all means, please advance
it. I'd very much like to see someone else besides me turn up
something new on this matter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
The evidence I've seen so far suggests that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, was the daughter of William Longespee I, just as stated in the
Lacock pedigree. The fact that Ida didn't use the name Camyle is an
important new piece of evidence. This seriously undercuts the
alternative theory that this Ida belongs to the next generation.
If the sticking point for you is that there were two Ida's who were
sisters, you need to get over that fast. Parents in the medieval
period and even later occasonally had two children of the same name.
This may shock modern sensibilities, but then so do child marriages
like the one I posted on last week involving Gilbert Talbot and Joan
of Gloucester. Gilbert and Joan were 6 and 4 years old respectively
when their parents arranged their marriage. Modern people are made
very uncomfortable with such social customs.
All the same, if you possess credible evidence proving that this Ida
Longespee belongs in a later generation, by all means, please advance
it. I'd very much like to see someone else besides me turn up
something new on this matter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
John Brandon
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
it. I'd very much like to see someone else besides me turn up
something new on this matter.
This _is_ true. Doug is very gifted at finding new evidence lurking
in unexpected places.
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 24 Mai, 20:40, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Ex pede Herculem? The fact that one name was used for or by Ida on
one specific occasion does not necessarily mean that she did not use
another, or that another was not used for her. Furthermore, this may
not even be a germane argument, given the suggestion that the
reference to her as Ida de Camyle may have been elliptic.
It does no such thing of course; calling her Ida de Longespee is just
as appropriate whichever of the two generations she may have belonged
to, and does not alter the apparent reference to her in association
with the name 'de Camville', which retains its force as a suggestion
that she may have belonged to the second generation.
Clearly this is not a sticking point for Doug Thompson: he wrote:
"There is no evidence that there were two sisters called Ida. There is
merely a possibility"
Yes, I think we are well aware of this. And the irrelevant reference
to child marriages actually weakens your chronological arguments
rather than the reverse.
Your new reference to Ida with the surname Longespee is, as all have
acknowledged, interesting and a good find. However, your
determination to present your speculation as fact is tired and
unsustainable; you do yourself no favours by continuing to act in such
a fashion. Your call for facts to disprove your presentation of
theory as gospel is also tired - as far as I know, there is no
evidence to prove which generation this Ida belonged to - including
your speculation. We do not know, and maybe we never will. This does
not give us licence to pretend to certainty where none exists.
You concluded your original post on this thread with these words: "as
always, comments are welcome". It is difficult to conclude other than
that what you seek is not comment, but agreement or praise. I am
happy to offer praise for the find, but the inherent weakness of your
position prevents agreement; I am sorry if you feel slighted by this.
Kind regards, Michael
Dear Doug ~
The evidence I've seen so far suggests that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, was the daughter of William Longespee I, just as stated in the
Lacock pedigree. The fact that Ida didn't use the name Camyle is an
important new piece of evidence.
Ex pede Herculem? The fact that one name was used for or by Ida on
one specific occasion does not necessarily mean that she did not use
another, or that another was not used for her. Furthermore, this may
not even be a germane argument, given the suggestion that the
reference to her as Ida de Camyle may have been elliptic.
This seriously undercuts the
alternative theory that this Ida belongs to the next generation.
It does no such thing of course; calling her Ida de Longespee is just
as appropriate whichever of the two generations she may have belonged
to, and does not alter the apparent reference to her in association
with the name 'de Camville', which retains its force as a suggestion
that she may have belonged to the second generation.
If the sticking point for you is that there were two Ida's who were
sisters, you need to get over that fast.
Clearly this is not a sticking point for Doug Thompson: he wrote:
"There is no evidence that there were two sisters called Ida. There is
merely a possibility"
Parents in the medieval
period and even later occasonally had two children of the same name.
This may shock modern sensibilities, but then so do child marriages
like the one I posted on last week involving Gilbert Talbot and Joan
of Gloucester. Gilbert and Joan were 6 and 4 years old respectively
when their parents arranged their marriage. Modern people are made
very uncomfortable with such social customs.
Yes, I think we are well aware of this. And the irrelevant reference
to child marriages actually weakens your chronological arguments
rather than the reverse.
All the same, if you possess credible evidence proving that this Ida
Longespee belongs in a later generation, by all means, please advance
it. I'd very much like to see someone else besides me turn up
something new on this matter.
Your new reference to Ida with the surname Longespee is, as all have
acknowledged, interesting and a good find. However, your
determination to present your speculation as fact is tired and
unsustainable; you do yourself no favours by continuing to act in such
a fashion. Your call for facts to disprove your presentation of
theory as gospel is also tired - as far as I know, there is no
evidence to prove which generation this Ida belonged to - including
your speculation. We do not know, and maybe we never will. This does
not give us licence to pretend to certainty where none exists.
You concluded your original post on this thread with these words: "as
always, comments are welcome". It is difficult to conclude other than
that what you seek is not comment, but agreement or praise. I am
happy to offer praise for the find, but the inherent weakness of your
position prevents agreement; I am sorry if you feel slighted by this.
Kind regards, Michael
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1180022085.952233.112450@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
But it is not so far true that anything "has been established by
contemporary evidence", or that the "find" proclaimed (and for some reason
acknowledged) in this thread is indeed important.
All we have seen is the following, from Richardson's first post on the
subject yesterday:
Surely the newsgroup readers are mindful that this as presented is not a
"contemporary" text: until we see what the letter actually says, the surname
Longespée may be just a 20th-century editorial gloss derived from the
confused account of the founder's family written at Lacock. The form
"Longespée" is not usual in 13th-century documents, but whether any form of
this surname occurs in the letter of Walter fitz Robert's widow is not yet
established.
Peter Stewart
news:1180022085.952233.112450@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
The Lacock Priory pedigree places Ida Longespee, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, as the daughter of William Longespee I. To date I've found no
serious evidence to refute that statement. Rather, the evidence I've
seen so far indicates that Ida was the daughter of William Longespee
I, just as stated in the Lacock pedigree. This is all the more true
now that it has been established by contemporary evidence that Ida
used Longespee, as her surname, not Camyle or Camville.
But it is not so far true that anything "has been established by
contemporary evidence", or that the "find" proclaimed (and for some reason
acknowledged) in this thread is indeed important.
All we have seen is the following, from Richardson's first post on the
subject yesterday:
"152. Ida Longespée, widow of Walter Fitz Robert, to the same
[Walter de Merton, Chancellor]: to bail two of her men appealed of
homicide. [1261-1263]." [Reference: List of Ancient Corr. of the
Chancery and Exchequer (PRO Lists and Indexes 15) (1902): 107-108].
Surely the newsgroup readers are mindful that this as presented is not a
"contemporary" text: until we see what the letter actually says, the surname
Longespée may be just a 20th-century editorial gloss derived from the
confused account of the founder's family written at Lacock. The form
"Longespée" is not usual in 13th-century documents, but whether any form of
this surname occurs in the letter of Walter fitz Robert's widow is not yet
established.
Peter Stewart
-
Doug Thompson
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 24/5/07 20:40, in article
1180035637.124561.307980@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, "Douglas Richardson"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Douglas, If you have had sight of some secret evidence unavailable to the
rest of us, it really is unfair of you to tease us like this. Just give us a
view of it too. I have not yet seen ANY evidence for this fact EXCEPT the
Lacock pedigree, which is, as I have shown, unreliable on this issue.
You must see that this is blatant nonsense. Her name would be Ida Longspee
whichever generation she was in - and you have no evidence that she didn't
use Camyle sometimes. In fact you seem to think that the use of Ida de
Camyle in the Lacock document does refer to her. You are appearing confused
over this.
No. I can quote several instances of this which are familiar to me. It's
just there is no evidence that THESE two women were sisters.
Again, the inability to prove one fact does not constitute a proof of the
other!
It would be instructive for you to consider a reply to the weakness in your
argument addressed in my first paragraph - repeated here:
The Lacock pedigree is inherently unreliable as a source of information.
Firstly, as you say, Ida used Longspee as a surname so the use of Ida de
Camyle in the Lacock document suggests an unfamiliarity with the people
mentioned. Secondly, preceding Ida on the list is Ela, married to the earl
of Warwick, and after Ida comes Ela, married to William "de Dodingseles".
Are you suggesting that both Ela's are sisters too? And if not, why do you
choose a different view about Ida?
Doug
1180035637.124561.307980@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, "Douglas Richardson"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
The evidence I've seen so far suggests that Ida, wife of Walter Fitz
Robert, was the daughter of William Longespee I, just as stated in the
Lacock pedigree.
Douglas, If you have had sight of some secret evidence unavailable to the
rest of us, it really is unfair of you to tease us like this. Just give us a
view of it too. I have not yet seen ANY evidence for this fact EXCEPT the
Lacock pedigree, which is, as I have shown, unreliable on this issue.
The fact that Ida didn't use the name Camyle is an
important new piece of evidence. This seriously undercuts the
alternative theory that this Ida belongs to the next generation.
You must see that this is blatant nonsense. Her name would be Ida Longspee
whichever generation she was in - and you have no evidence that she didn't
use Camyle sometimes. In fact you seem to think that the use of Ida de
Camyle in the Lacock document does refer to her. You are appearing confused
over this.
If the sticking point for you is that there were two Ida's who were
sisters, you need to get over that fast.
No. I can quote several instances of this which are familiar to me. It's
just there is no evidence that THESE two women were sisters.
All the same, if you possess credible evidence proving that this Ida
Longespee belongs in a later generation, by all means, please advance
it.
Again, the inability to prove one fact does not constitute a proof of the
other!
It would be instructive for you to consider a reply to the weakness in your
argument addressed in my first paragraph - repeated here:
The Lacock pedigree is inherently unreliable as a source of information.
Firstly, as you say, Ida used Longspee as a surname so the use of Ida de
Camyle in the Lacock document suggests an unfamiliarity with the people
mentioned. Secondly, preceding Ida on the list is Ela, married to the earl
of Warwick, and after Ida comes Ela, married to William "de Dodingseles".
Are you suggesting that both Ela's are sisters too? And if not, why do you
choose a different view about Ida?
Doug
-
Alan Grey
Re: Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walte
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
In actual fact, the document (rightly or wrongly) specifically states
that both Ida and Ela are the children of William (I) Longespee and
Countess Ela. The children are given (in this order): William Longespe
II, Richard (canon of Sarum), Stephan (earl of Ulton), Nicholas (Bishop
of Sarum), Isabel de Vescy, Ela (who married firstly the earl of Warwick
and secondly Philip Basset), Ida de Camyle (wife of Walter Fitz Robert),
and Ela (wife of William Dodingeseles). All these individuals are listed
as the children of William (I) and Countess Ela (“Gulielmus Longespe ex
praedicta Ela liberos genuit, quorum nomina sunt haec ... [list of
individuals]”). At any rate, that was clearly the intent of document's
author. Children of the next generation were rarely included, and always
were listed immediately after their parents, referenced as “[parents] de
qua genuit [child]”. Note that no children of William (II) Longespee
were ever specifically identified; nor was his wife.
The problem people seem to have with the list is in relation to the two
last-listed individuals (Ida and Ela). The list has Ida de Camyle
followed by her two children (Catherine and Lora). The next on the list
is Ela (wife of William Dodingeseles), and although it might be
appealing to think that this Ela was intended as another child of Ida de
Camyle, this is unlikely. The text reads (with modern punctuation
omitted), “Idam de Camyle quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti de
qua genuit Catherinam et Loricam quae velatae erant apud Lacok Elam quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodineseles de qua genuit Robertum”. It is not
likely that the compiler would effectively write “Ida, who had issue
Catherine, Lora and Ela, who had issue Robert” as that form is not
followed anywhere else and it is not meaningful in the context of the
information being presented.
In any case, the children of William (I) and Countess Ela are later
listed (in reference to 1226) as William Lungespe II, Stephen, Richard,
Nicholas, Isabella Vescy, Petronilla [“Ela”], Ela and Ida, and while the
order differs once for the males and once for the females, it is clearly
the same individuals on both lists.
Taken on face value, therefore, this clearly supports the placement of
Ida (wife of Walter FitzRobert) as a daughter of William (I). Admittedly
that leaves a sticking point of the last Ela being the wife of William
Doddingseles. Unfortunately I do not have much to add here as I do not
have much on the family as yet. I know that current thinking is that the
William Doddingseles that died in 1295 was married to Ela, who is said
to be the daughter of Walter FitzRobert and Ida Longespee. I presume
that there is clear evidence for this belief (beyond the obvious
chronological issues), but as yet I do not know what it is. If someone
could identify the specific evidence, I would be grateful.
As noted above, the Fundatorum Historia says that, “Ela quam duxit primo
Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum”. This seems to imply
that William was a first husband, but could it mean that Ela married the
first William de Oddingseles, i.e., the father, not the son of the same
name? (This is similar to the way in which the doucument refers to
William Longespee primus and secundus for the father and son.) I realise
that the elder William Doddingseles did marry a woman named Joan, who
married (2) Ralph de Limesi, but she could have been a second wife. Is
it not possible that William (I) de Oddingseles married (1) Ela,
daughter of William (I) de Longespee and Countess Ela, and (2) Joan?
Besides, what is also unanswered is, who is the Doddingseles son named
Robert?
Anyway, back to the topic of the thread, it seems to me that the
question of whether Ida, the wife of Walter FitzRobert, was the daughter
of William (I) Longespee or William (II) Longespee cannot ever be solved
by appealing to chronology. Chronologically she could be either a
younger daughter of William (I) and born c.1225, or an elder daughter of
William (II) and born c.1228. It makes little difference. In the absence
of further information, people seem to be leaning one way or the other,
depending on (i) their faith in the Lacock information and (ii) their
thoughts on the significance of Ida being labelled “de Camyle”.
Alan R Grey
On 23 Mai, 16:04, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub FitzWalter) identified Ida, wife
of Walter Fitz Robert, as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl of
Salisbury." Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, has
traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found in
Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children of
William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:
"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
[Reference: Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, 6(1) (1830): 501].
PS It is worth noting that while the document quoted does contain a
list of the children of the elder William Longespee, it is apparently
not confined to being such a list - Ela wife of William Oddingseles,
for instance, was certainly not his daughter, nor is it stated that
Ida 'de Camyle' was.
In actual fact, the document (rightly or wrongly) specifically states
that both Ida and Ela are the children of William (I) Longespee and
Countess Ela. The children are given (in this order): William Longespe
II, Richard (canon of Sarum), Stephan (earl of Ulton), Nicholas (Bishop
of Sarum), Isabel de Vescy, Ela (who married firstly the earl of Warwick
and secondly Philip Basset), Ida de Camyle (wife of Walter Fitz Robert),
and Ela (wife of William Dodingeseles). All these individuals are listed
as the children of William (I) and Countess Ela (“Gulielmus Longespe ex
praedicta Ela liberos genuit, quorum nomina sunt haec ... [list of
individuals]”). At any rate, that was clearly the intent of document's
author. Children of the next generation were rarely included, and always
were listed immediately after their parents, referenced as “[parents] de
qua genuit [child]”. Note that no children of William (II) Longespee
were ever specifically identified; nor was his wife.
The problem people seem to have with the list is in relation to the two
last-listed individuals (Ida and Ela). The list has Ida de Camyle
followed by her two children (Catherine and Lora). The next on the list
is Ela (wife of William Dodingeseles), and although it might be
appealing to think that this Ela was intended as another child of Ida de
Camyle, this is unlikely. The text reads (with modern punctuation
omitted), “Idam de Camyle quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti de
qua genuit Catherinam et Loricam quae velatae erant apud Lacok Elam quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodineseles de qua genuit Robertum”. It is not
likely that the compiler would effectively write “Ida, who had issue
Catherine, Lora and Ela, who had issue Robert” as that form is not
followed anywhere else and it is not meaningful in the context of the
information being presented.
In any case, the children of William (I) and Countess Ela are later
listed (in reference to 1226) as William Lungespe II, Stephen, Richard,
Nicholas, Isabella Vescy, Petronilla [“Ela”], Ela and Ida, and while the
order differs once for the males and once for the females, it is clearly
the same individuals on both lists.
Taken on face value, therefore, this clearly supports the placement of
Ida (wife of Walter FitzRobert) as a daughter of William (I). Admittedly
that leaves a sticking point of the last Ela being the wife of William
Doddingseles. Unfortunately I do not have much to add here as I do not
have much on the family as yet. I know that current thinking is that the
William Doddingseles that died in 1295 was married to Ela, who is said
to be the daughter of Walter FitzRobert and Ida Longespee. I presume
that there is clear evidence for this belief (beyond the obvious
chronological issues), but as yet I do not know what it is. If someone
could identify the specific evidence, I would be grateful.
As noted above, the Fundatorum Historia says that, “Ela quam duxit primo
Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum”. This seems to imply
that William was a first husband, but could it mean that Ela married the
first William de Oddingseles, i.e., the father, not the son of the same
name? (This is similar to the way in which the doucument refers to
William Longespee primus and secundus for the father and son.) I realise
that the elder William Doddingseles did marry a woman named Joan, who
married (2) Ralph de Limesi, but she could have been a second wife. Is
it not possible that William (I) de Oddingseles married (1) Ela,
daughter of William (I) de Longespee and Countess Ela, and (2) Joan?
Besides, what is also unanswered is, who is the Doddingseles son named
Robert?
Anyway, back to the topic of the thread, it seems to me that the
question of whether Ida, the wife of Walter FitzRobert, was the daughter
of William (I) Longespee or William (II) Longespee cannot ever be solved
by appealing to chronology. Chronologically she could be either a
younger daughter of William (I) and born c.1225, or an elder daughter of
William (II) and born c.1228. It makes little difference. In the absence
of further information, people seem to be leaning one way or the other,
depending on (i) their faith in the Lacock information and (ii) their
thoughts on the significance of Ida being labelled “de Camyle”.
Alan R Grey
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 25 Mai, 05:24, Alan Grey <a.g...@niwa.co.nz> wrote:
Alan, a series of good points. I agree with you entirely. I am not
saying that Ida Fitz Walter was not the daughter of William I
Longespee, simply that proof is lacking and that it is wrong to ignore
the alternative views that have been offered over the years. In
addressing the Laycock document itself, two other difficulties need to
be considered:
(1) that Ida is called "de Camyle". In fairness, Douglas R. has
suggested this may represent an early first marriage for her. While
this may be valid speculation, is it not established fact. Conversely
it may be significant that William II Longespee married a Camville.
As you note, at this stage we do not know.
(2) that Ela de Oddingseles is also included in the list. We may
speculate that her inclusion is intended to indicate she was a
daughter of Ida Fitz Walter, but again we cannot know. Ignoring this
issue, as Doug T. notes, leads to an inconsistent approach.
As a further point, I understand that research on the Longespee family
has been recently undertaken by Rosie Bevan and Paul Reed, and is
likely to appear in a forthcoming edition of 'Foundations'. No doubt
this will be eagerly awaited by those with an interest in the subject.
Kind regards, Michael
WJhonson wrote:
But Alan you neglected to point out the additional problem that Ida is supposd to have married William de Beauchamp, Lord of Bedford.
There is just a sole problem with the Lacock document, there are at least two problems.
True, on both counts.
There was an Ida that married William de Beauchamp (being the widow of
Ralph de Somery, who d.s.p.). This could only be another Ida and
daughter of William (I) Longespee, as discussed on earlier threads, and
her omission from the Lacock document is usually explicable in terms of
compiler ignorance. To be fair to the compiler, though, he never
claimed that he was providing an exhaustive list of William's children
(or William and Ela's children, for that matter). Besides, I am unclear
as to the specific evidence that this Ida was Countess Ela's daughter
anyway ... perhaps she was an illegitimate(!?) daughter of William. The
fine of 1220 whereby William, Earl of Salisbury, granted the manor of
Belchamp, Essex to William de Beauchamp in marriage with his daughter,
Ida, who was the widow of Ralph de Somery [Essex Fines, Vol. 1 (1899),
pg. 58] simply proves that Ida was the daughter of William, not that she
was the daughter of William and Ela (depending, of course, on the right
by which William held Belchamp). Illegitimacy was no barrier to
receiving gifts (e.g., Richard I's "magnificent" gift of Countess Ela to
his bastard brother William Longespee in the first place). Besides, a
scenario whereby Ida is William's but not Ela's daughter has the
advantage of more easily explaining her early (first) marriage (compared
with her siblings), skirting the consanguinity problem with Ralph de
Somery (which only arises by relationship with Countess Ela), gives a
good reason for there being potentially two daughters of William (I)
named Ida, and helps explain how William managed to have so many
surviving children in the space of 20 child-bearing years of marriage to
a woman 12 years his junior while being overseas at war much of the time
(including being a prisoner). This is pure speculation ... I'm not
saying that any of this is "true". I tend to accept the interpretation
that Ida is a legitimate daughter, but just wish to emphasise that there
can be many explanations for the same facts.
Alan, a series of good points. I agree with you entirely. I am not
saying that Ida Fitz Walter was not the daughter of William I
Longespee, simply that proof is lacking and that it is wrong to ignore
the alternative views that have been offered over the years. In
addressing the Laycock document itself, two other difficulties need to
be considered:
(1) that Ida is called "de Camyle". In fairness, Douglas R. has
suggested this may represent an early first marriage for her. While
this may be valid speculation, is it not established fact. Conversely
it may be significant that William II Longespee married a Camville.
As you note, at this stage we do not know.
(2) that Ela de Oddingseles is also included in the list. We may
speculate that her inclusion is intended to indicate she was a
daughter of Ida Fitz Walter, but again we cannot know. Ignoring this
issue, as Doug T. notes, leads to an inconsistent approach.
As a further point, I understand that research on the Longespee family
has been recently undertaken by Rosie Bevan and Paul Reed, and is
likely to appear in a forthcoming edition of 'Foundations'. No doubt
this will be eagerly awaited by those with an interest in the subject.
Kind regards, Michael
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
Dear Newsgroup ~
Regarding the placement of Ela, wife of Sir William de Oddingseles, in
the Longespée family tree, Ela is traditionally assigned as a daughter
of Sir Walter Fitz Robert (died 1258), of Little Dunmow, Essex, and
his wife, Ida Longespée (living 1262), although I'm not entirely sure
why this is so. See for instance Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 313 (sub
Clinton). My research indicates that Ela's husband Sir William de
Oddingseles was of age in or before 1259, so I've tentatively assigned
a birth date for him of approximately 1235. Ela and Sir William de
Oddingseles had five known children, Edmund, Ida, Ela, Alice, and
Margaret. The youngest daughter, Margaret, was born about 1277, she
being aged 18 in 1295.
On the surface, this chronology suggests that Ela, wife of Sir William
de Oddingseles, was born say 1237. As such, it is is highly unlikely
that Ela de Oddingseles was a daughter of William Longespée I and his
wife, Ela of Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury
was born c.1191. On chronological grounds alone, it would seem likely
that Ela de Oddingseles was one of William I and Ela Longespée's
granddaughters.
For interest's sake, I've posted below an account of Ela Fitz Walter
and Sir William de Oddingseles, which material is an expanded version
of the material found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). I've
cited all of my sources.
Lastly, my research indicates that Ela Fitz Walter married a second
husband after Sir William de Oddingseles' death and that she was
living in 1302/3. So far, I've been unable to identify the second
husband. Usually for a lady of this rank it is fairly easy to spot
her new husband. If anyone has any suggestions regarding the
identify of Ela's second husband, I'd certainly appreciate hearing
from them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
ODDINGSELES FAMILY
1. ELA FITZ WALTER, married (1st) WILLIAM DE ODDINGSELES (or
ODDINGESELES), Knt., of Solihull, Budbrooke, Maxstoke, and Olton (in
Solihull), Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, Oxborough, Norfolk,
Weeford, Staffordshire, and Cavendish and Newton, Suffolk, Justiciar
of Ireland, 1294-1295, son and heir of William Oddingseles, of
Solihull and Maxstoke, Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, etc.,
Keeper of Montgomery Castle, by his wife, Joan. He was born say 1235
(adult by 1259). They had one son, Edmund, and four daughters, Ida
(wife of Roger de Herdeburgh, Knt., and John de Clinton, 1st Lord
Clinton), Ela (wife of Peter de Bermingham and possibly Philip
Purcel), Alice (wife of Maurice or Thomas Caunton), and Margaret (wife
of John de Grey, Knt., and Robert de Moreby, Knt.). In 1265 he
witnessed a charter for Philip Basset, Knt., and his wife, Ela
Longespée (his wife's aunt). In 1285 he claimed a court leet with
gallows, tumbril and assize of bread and ale in Maxstoke and
Solihull. In 1294 the king granted him the castle of Dunamon (or
Clanconway) in Connaught in Ireland. SIR WILLIAM DE ODDINGSELES died
testate 19 April 1295. His widow, Ela, married (2nd) _____. She was
living in 1302/3.
References:
Dugdale, Antiqs. of Warwickshire (1656): 228. Nichols, Hist. & Antiq.
of Leicestershire 4(2) (1811): 636. Baker, Hist. & Antiq. of
Northampton 1 (1822-1830): 651. Clutterbuck, Hist. & Antiq. of
Hertford 3 (1827): 119-120 (Odingsells-Clinton pedigree). Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 501 (Longespée pedigree in Lacock
Priory records: "Elam [Fitz Walter], quam duxit primo Guillielmus de
Dodingeseles"). Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4
(1837): 311-312. Appleyard, Welsh Sketches 2nd ser. (1852): 93. Cal.
of Docs. Rel. Ireland 2 (1877): 280, 410; 3 (1879): 37, 89, 144, 194,
242, 320, 335; 4 (1881): 58, 63, 77, 79, 83, 86, 103, 118, 121, 125-
126, 188, 191. Genealogist 4 (1880): 50-58. Wrottesley,
Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 7(1)) (1886):
64, 82, 107. Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum 3
(1894): 327 (seal of William de Odingeseles, al[ias] de Dodingeseles,
of Warwickshire dated late Henry III-Shield shaped: a shield of arms:
a fess, and in chief two estoiles of six points, for mullets
[DODINGSELLS]). C.P.R. 1292-1301 (1895): 99. C.Ch.R. 2 (1898): 457.
Ancestor 8 (1904): 167; 10 (1904): 32-37. Feudal Aids 5 (1908): 27.
Knox, Hist. of the County of Mayo (1908): 137. C.P. 1 (1910): 298
(sub Athenry); 6 (1926): 144-145 (sub Grey); 8 (1932): 170 (sub
Louth). VCH Hertford 3 (1912): 48 (Oddingselles arms: Argent a fesse
gules with two molets gules in the chief). Cal. IPMs 3 (1912): 186-
187. Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 6 (1915): 47, 145, 272, 355. Book
of Fees 2 (1923): 968. Farrer, Honors & Knights' Fees 1 (1923): 5; 2
(1924): 343-344, 395; 3 (1925): 393. Edwards, Cal. of Ancient Corr.
Concerning Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. & Law 2) (1935): 16-
17. VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 65; 4 (1947): 138 (Odingeseles arms: Argent
a fesse gules with two spur rowels gules in chief), 218-221. Hatton,
Book of Seals (1950): 192. Tremlett et al., Rolls of Arms Henry III
(H.S.P. 113-4) (1967): 48, 57, 143, 198 (Oddingseles arms: Argent, a
fess gules in chief two mullets gules). Ancient Deeds-Series B 3
(List & Index Soc. 113) (1975): B.10877 (agreement of heirs), B.
12890. Ancient Deeds-Series A 1 (List & Index Soc. 151) (1978): 203.
Mason, Beauchamp Cartulary Charters (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 43) (1980):
20-22. Fryde, Handbook of British Chron. (1996): 162. Online
resource: http:// perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms/rolls/
lordmarshalsLM02.htm (Lord Marshal's Roll - arms of William de
Oddingseles: Argent in fess and in chief two mullets gules).
Regarding the placement of Ela, wife of Sir William de Oddingseles, in
the Longespée family tree, Ela is traditionally assigned as a daughter
of Sir Walter Fitz Robert (died 1258), of Little Dunmow, Essex, and
his wife, Ida Longespée (living 1262), although I'm not entirely sure
why this is so. See for instance Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 313 (sub
Clinton). My research indicates that Ela's husband Sir William de
Oddingseles was of age in or before 1259, so I've tentatively assigned
a birth date for him of approximately 1235. Ela and Sir William de
Oddingseles had five known children, Edmund, Ida, Ela, Alice, and
Margaret. The youngest daughter, Margaret, was born about 1277, she
being aged 18 in 1295.
On the surface, this chronology suggests that Ela, wife of Sir William
de Oddingseles, was born say 1237. As such, it is is highly unlikely
that Ela de Oddingseles was a daughter of William Longespée I and his
wife, Ela of Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury
was born c.1191. On chronological grounds alone, it would seem likely
that Ela de Oddingseles was one of William I and Ela Longespée's
granddaughters.
For interest's sake, I've posted below an account of Ela Fitz Walter
and Sir William de Oddingseles, which material is an expanded version
of the material found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). I've
cited all of my sources.
Lastly, my research indicates that Ela Fitz Walter married a second
husband after Sir William de Oddingseles' death and that she was
living in 1302/3. So far, I've been unable to identify the second
husband. Usually for a lady of this rank it is fairly easy to spot
her new husband. If anyone has any suggestions regarding the
identify of Ela's second husband, I'd certainly appreciate hearing
from them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
ODDINGSELES FAMILY
1. ELA FITZ WALTER, married (1st) WILLIAM DE ODDINGSELES (or
ODDINGESELES), Knt., of Solihull, Budbrooke, Maxstoke, and Olton (in
Solihull), Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, Oxborough, Norfolk,
Weeford, Staffordshire, and Cavendish and Newton, Suffolk, Justiciar
of Ireland, 1294-1295, son and heir of William Oddingseles, of
Solihull and Maxstoke, Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, etc.,
Keeper of Montgomery Castle, by his wife, Joan. He was born say 1235
(adult by 1259). They had one son, Edmund, and four daughters, Ida
(wife of Roger de Herdeburgh, Knt., and John de Clinton, 1st Lord
Clinton), Ela (wife of Peter de Bermingham and possibly Philip
Purcel), Alice (wife of Maurice or Thomas Caunton), and Margaret (wife
of John de Grey, Knt., and Robert de Moreby, Knt.). In 1265 he
witnessed a charter for Philip Basset, Knt., and his wife, Ela
Longespée (his wife's aunt). In 1285 he claimed a court leet with
gallows, tumbril and assize of bread and ale in Maxstoke and
Solihull. In 1294 the king granted him the castle of Dunamon (or
Clanconway) in Connaught in Ireland. SIR WILLIAM DE ODDINGSELES died
testate 19 April 1295. His widow, Ela, married (2nd) _____. She was
living in 1302/3.
References:
Dugdale, Antiqs. of Warwickshire (1656): 228. Nichols, Hist. & Antiq.
of Leicestershire 4(2) (1811): 636. Baker, Hist. & Antiq. of
Northampton 1 (1822-1830): 651. Clutterbuck, Hist. & Antiq. of
Hertford 3 (1827): 119-120 (Odingsells-Clinton pedigree). Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 501 (Longespée pedigree in Lacock
Priory records: "Elam [Fitz Walter], quam duxit primo Guillielmus de
Dodingeseles"). Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4
(1837): 311-312. Appleyard, Welsh Sketches 2nd ser. (1852): 93. Cal.
of Docs. Rel. Ireland 2 (1877): 280, 410; 3 (1879): 37, 89, 144, 194,
242, 320, 335; 4 (1881): 58, 63, 77, 79, 83, 86, 103, 118, 121, 125-
126, 188, 191. Genealogist 4 (1880): 50-58. Wrottesley,
Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 7(1)) (1886):
64, 82, 107. Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum 3
(1894): 327 (seal of William de Odingeseles, al[ias] de Dodingeseles,
of Warwickshire dated late Henry III-Shield shaped: a shield of arms:
a fess, and in chief two estoiles of six points, for mullets
[DODINGSELLS]). C.P.R. 1292-1301 (1895): 99. C.Ch.R. 2 (1898): 457.
Ancestor 8 (1904): 167; 10 (1904): 32-37. Feudal Aids 5 (1908): 27.
Knox, Hist. of the County of Mayo (1908): 137. C.P. 1 (1910): 298
(sub Athenry); 6 (1926): 144-145 (sub Grey); 8 (1932): 170 (sub
Louth). VCH Hertford 3 (1912): 48 (Oddingselles arms: Argent a fesse
gules with two molets gules in the chief). Cal. IPMs 3 (1912): 186-
187. Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 6 (1915): 47, 145, 272, 355. Book
of Fees 2 (1923): 968. Farrer, Honors & Knights' Fees 1 (1923): 5; 2
(1924): 343-344, 395; 3 (1925): 393. Edwards, Cal. of Ancient Corr.
Concerning Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. & Law 2) (1935): 16-
17. VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 65; 4 (1947): 138 (Odingeseles arms: Argent
a fesse gules with two spur rowels gules in chief), 218-221. Hatton,
Book of Seals (1950): 192. Tremlett et al., Rolls of Arms Henry III
(H.S.P. 113-4) (1967): 48, 57, 143, 198 (Oddingseles arms: Argent, a
fess gules in chief two mullets gules). Ancient Deeds-Series B 3
(List & Index Soc. 113) (1975): B.10877 (agreement of heirs), B.
12890. Ancient Deeds-Series A 1 (List & Index Soc. 151) (1978): 203.
Mason, Beauchamp Cartulary Charters (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 43) (1980):
20-22. Fryde, Handbook of British Chron. (1996): 162. Online
resource: http:// perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms/rolls/
lordmarshalsLM02.htm (Lord Marshal's Roll - arms of William de
Oddingseles: Argent in fess and in chief two mullets gules).
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 25 Mai, 15:31, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
Could you cite the source for this last statement please? It is
impossible to distinguish in the jumble of unassigned citations that
conclude your post. Thanks.
It is by no means impossible or even necessarily unlikely that the
daughter of a woman born in 1191 should herself give birth so late as
1277 - two births at 43. The real chronological difficulty would lie
in the fact that the first William Longespee died in 1226, and thus
the latest his daughter could have been born was 1227 - maternity at
50 is extremely unlikely.
But you haven't distinguished them or otherwise attributed them to any
component statement in your account; this makes them next to useless,
unless each one is to be examined against each point. Footnotes or
the like for each statement would mitigate this. For instance, which
is the source of your statement that Ela Oddingseles remarried? That
might help others in assisting you as requested.
Best wishes, Michael
Unsubstantiated speculation
unsubstantiated guess, not fact
unsubstantiated speculation
This is indeed a Clutterbuck!
interpolated speculation presented as fact
Dear Newsgroup ~
Regarding the placement of Ela, wife of Sir William de Oddingseles, in
the Longespée family tree, Ela is traditionally assigned as a daughter
of Sir Walter Fitz Robert (died 1258), of Little Dunmow, Essex, and
his wife, Ida Longespée (living 1262), although I'm not entirely sure
why this is so. See for instance Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 313 (sub
Clinton). My research indicates that Ela's husband Sir William de
Oddingseles was of age in or before 1259, so I've tentatively assigned
a birth date for him of approximately 1235. Ela and Sir William de
Oddingseles had five known children, Edmund, Ida, Ela, Alice, and
Margaret. The youngest daughter, Margaret, was born about 1277, she
being aged 18 in 1295.
Dear Douglas
Could you cite the source for this last statement please? It is
impossible to distinguish in the jumble of unassigned citations that
conclude your post. Thanks.
On the surface, this chronology suggests that Ela, wife of Sir William
de Oddingseles, was born say 1237. As such, it is is highly unlikely
that Ela de Oddingseles was a daughter of William Longespée I and his
wife, Ela of Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury
was born c.1191. On chronological grounds alone, it would seem likely
that Ela de Oddingseles was one of William I and Ela Longespée's
granddaughters.
It is by no means impossible or even necessarily unlikely that the
daughter of a woman born in 1191 should herself give birth so late as
1277 - two births at 43. The real chronological difficulty would lie
in the fact that the first William Longespee died in 1226, and thus
the latest his daughter could have been born was 1227 - maternity at
50 is extremely unlikely.
For interest's sake, I've posted below an account of Ela Fitz Walter
and Sir William de Oddingseles, which material is an expanded version
of the material found in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). I've
cited all of my sources.
But you haven't distinguished them or otherwise attributed them to any
component statement in your account; this makes them next to useless,
unless each one is to be examined against each point. Footnotes or
the like for each statement would mitigate this. For instance, which
is the source of your statement that Ela Oddingseles remarried? That
might help others in assisting you as requested.
Best wishes, Michael
Lastly, my research indicates that Ela Fitz Walter married a second
husband after Sir William de Oddingseles' death and that she was
living in 1302/3. So far, I've been unable to identify the second
husband. Usually for a lady of this rank it is fairly easy to spot
her new husband. If anyone has any suggestions regarding the
identify of Ela's second husband, I'd certainly appreciate hearing
from them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
ODDINGSELES FAMILY
1. ELA FITZ WALTER,
Unsubstantiated speculation
married (1st) WILLIAM DE ODDINGSELES (or
ODDINGESELES), Knt., of Solihull, Budbrooke, Maxstoke, and Olton (in
Solihull), Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, Oxborough, Norfolk,
Weeford, Staffordshire, and Cavendish and Newton, Suffolk, Justiciar
of Ireland, 1294-1295, son and heir of William Oddingseles, of
Solihull and Maxstoke, Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, etc.,
Keeper of Montgomery Castle, by his wife, Joan. He was born say 1235
unsubstantiated guess, not fact
(adult by 1259). They had one son, Edmund, and four daughters, Ida
(wife of Roger de Herdeburgh, Knt., and John de Clinton, 1st Lord
Clinton), Ela (wife of Peter de Bermingham and possibly Philip
Purcel), Alice (wife of Maurice or Thomas Caunton), and Margaret (wife
of John de Grey, Knt., and Robert de Moreby, Knt.). In 1265 he
witnessed a charter for Philip Basset, Knt., and his wife, Ela
Longespée (his wife's aunt).
unsubstantiated speculation
In 1285 he claimed a court leet with
gallows, tumbril and assize of bread and ale in Maxstoke and
Solihull. In 1294 the king granted him the castle of Dunamon (or
Clanconway) in Connaught in Ireland. SIR WILLIAM DE ODDINGSELES died
testate 19 April 1295. His widow, Ela, married (2nd) _____. She was
living in 1302/3.
References:
Dugdale, Antiqs. of Warwickshire (1656): 228. Nichols, Hist. & Antiq.
of Leicestershire 4(2) (1811): 636. Baker, Hist. & Antiq. of
Northampton 1 (1822-1830): 651. Clutterbuck,
This is indeed a Clutterbuck!
Hist. & Antiq. of
Hertford 3 (1827): 119-120 (Odingsells-Clinton pedigree). Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum 6(1) (1830): 501 (Longespée pedigree in Lacock
Priory records: "Elam [Fitz Walter]
interpolated speculation presented as fact
, quam duxit primo Guillielmus de
Dodingeseles"). Banks, The Dormant & Extinct Baronage of England 4
(1837): 311-312. Appleyard, Welsh Sketches 2nd ser. (1852): 93. Cal.
of Docs. Rel. Ireland 2 (1877): 280, 410; 3 (1879): 37, 89, 144, 194,
242, 320, 335; 4 (1881): 58, 63, 77, 79, 83, 86, 103, 118, 121, 125-
126, 188, 191. Genealogist 4 (1880): 50-58. Wrottesley,
Staffordshire Suits: Plea Rolls (Colls. Hist. Staffs. 7(1)) (1886):
64, 82, 107. Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum 3
(1894): 327 (seal of William de Odingeseles, al[ias] de Dodingeseles,
of Warwickshire dated late Henry III-Shield shaped: a shield of arms:
a fess, and in chief two estoiles of six points, for mullets
[DODINGSELLS]). C.P.R. 1292-1301 (1895): 99. C.Ch.R. 2 (1898): 457.
Ancestor 8 (1904): 167; 10 (1904): 32-37. Feudal Aids 5 (1908): 27.
Knox, Hist. of the County of Mayo (1908): 137. C.P. 1 (1910): 298
(sub Athenry); 6 (1926): 144-145 (sub Grey); 8 (1932): 170 (sub
Louth). VCH Hertford 3 (1912): 48 (Oddingselles arms: Argent a fesse
gules with two molets gules in the chief). Cal. IPMs 3 (1912): 186-
187. Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds 6 (1915): 47, 145, 272, 355. Book
of Fees 2 (1923): 968. Farrer, Honors & Knights' Fees 1 (1923): 5; 2
(1924): 343-344, 395; 3 (1925): 393. Edwards, Cal. of Ancient Corr.
Concerning Wales (Board of Celtic Studies, Hist. & Law 2) (1935): 16-
17. VCH Warwick 3 (1945): 65; 4 (1947): 138 (Odingeseles arms: Argent
a fesse gules with two spur rowels gules in chief), 218-221. Hatton,
Book of Seals (1950): 192. Tremlett et al., Rolls of Arms Henry III
(H.S.P. 113-4) (1967): 48, 57, 143, 198 (Oddingseles arms: Argent, a
fess gules in chief two mullets gules). Ancient Deeds-Series B 3
(List & Index Soc. 113) (1975): B.10877 (agreement of heirs), B.
12890. Ancient Deeds-Series A 1 (List & Index Soc. 151) (1978): 203.
Mason, Beauchamp Cartulary Charters (Pipe Roll Soc. n.s. 43) (1980):
20-22. Fryde, Handbook of British Chron. (1996): 162. Online
resource: http:// perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms/rolls/
lordmarshalsLM02.htm (Lord Marshal's Roll - arms of William de
Oddingseles: Argent in fess and in chief two mullets gules).
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 25 Mai, 19:29, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Will, fear not - you are in good company. Douglas adopted the tactic
of emailing me off-list before resorting to his usual habit of hiding
in the long grass; now, rather than engaging with any issues raised,
he ignores them, like a child with his hands over his ears. Listers
can make of this what they will - I find it a sad waste, given the
time he clearly spends on relevant research. Let's simply concentrate
on discussing the merits and logic of the material presented - there's
nothing personal in this public discussion, just a desire to prevent
the poor scholarship that mars otherwise useful work from infecting
the public record. I am sure that Douglas will recognise the benefits
of effective peer review and encouragement to adopt proper scholarly
standards in due course: that's part of true collegiality.
MA-R
I received a rather remarkable email privately from Mr Richardson in which among other remarks he chides me for not "thanking" him for his find. And stating, in conjuction that he "doesn't like freeloaders."
Now one might, like the document from the Lacock Priory, interpret that in various ways, but that way I choose to interpret it, is that Douglas, not content with addressing the logic of the argument, wishes to attack the persons in opposition instead.
The matter of the Lacock Priory document and it's problem was discussed *many years ago* and Douglas, has ignored that discussion entirely in this new thread, and keeps pounding the drum of *firm authority* on this issue, which, such authority, certainly does not exist in this document, nor in the purported *new* find he has made.
Not yet ready to admit the error he most recently made in not recognizing the word "mal", and then vanishing for a few months to appear later, again with no acknowledgement for that glaring error in one who lectures others on Latin, French, Spanish or Sanskrit as he will.
And now lecturing on internet-manners.
I will point out that Douglas is that same person who, par the course also tread by the interpid author of MedLands and his ilk, refuses to acknowledge the contributions of other authors on this list. This was pointed out some time ago, neither Douglas nor Charles Cawley nor their supporters EVER addressed the issue.
I'm sure those authors who've had their contributions *lifted* would appreciate acknowledgement of that along with a sincere effort to acknowledge those contributions in future works. That is what scholars do.
Douglas thank you for pointing out my lapse in manners for not *thanking* you for this *new* discovery, perhaps you could also thank all those people whose work has directly contributed to yours.
Will Johnson
Will, fear not - you are in good company. Douglas adopted the tactic
of emailing me off-list before resorting to his usual habit of hiding
in the long grass; now, rather than engaging with any issues raised,
he ignores them, like a child with his hands over his ears. Listers
can make of this what they will - I find it a sad waste, given the
time he clearly spends on relevant research. Let's simply concentrate
on discussing the merits and logic of the material presented - there's
nothing personal in this public discussion, just a desire to prevent
the poor scholarship that mars otherwise useful work from infecting
the public record. I am sure that Douglas will recognise the benefits
of effective peer review and encouragement to adopt proper scholarly
standards in due course: that's part of true collegiality.
MA-R
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 25 Mai, 15:31, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I realise that there is some conflict between secondary sources here
(VCH Warwick vol 4 sub Solihull vs VCH Herts vol 3 sub Pirton), but a
primary source (Plea Rolls, Michaelmas Term, 27 Edward I) - providing
it has been transcribed accurately - provides the testimony of John
and Ida de Clinton that Alice was the wife of "Maurice de Kaunton", as
well as proving further details of the four Odingseles heiresses and
their mother's dower claims. William de Odingseles's widow Ida had
evidently not remarried as at late 1297.
MA-R
ODDINGSELES FAMILY
1. ELA FITZ WALTER, married (1st) WILLIAM DE ODDINGSELES (or
ODDINGESELES), Knt., of Solihull, Budbrooke, Maxstoke, and Olton (in
Solihull), Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, Oxborough, Norfolk,
Weeford, Staffordshire, and Cavendish and Newton, Suffolk, Justiciar
of Ireland, 1294-1295, son and heir of William Oddingseles, of
Solihull and Maxstoke, Warwickshire, Pirton, Hertfordshire, etc.,
Keeper of Montgomery Castle, by his wife, Joan. He was born say 1235
(adult by 1259). They had one son, Edmund, and four daughters, Ida
(wife of Roger de Herdeburgh, Knt., and John de Clinton, 1st Lord
Clinton), Ela (wife of Peter de Bermingham and possibly Philip
Purcel), Alice (wife of Maurice or Thomas Caunton)
I realise that there is some conflict between secondary sources here
(VCH Warwick vol 4 sub Solihull vs VCH Herts vol 3 sub Pirton), but a
primary source (Plea Rolls, Michaelmas Term, 27 Edward I) - providing
it has been transcribed accurately - provides the testimony of John
and Ida de Clinton that Alice was the wife of "Maurice de Kaunton", as
well as proving further details of the four Odingseles heiresses and
their mother's dower claims. William de Odingseles's widow Ida had
evidently not remarried as at late 1297.
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1180119129.498102.45970@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Well, he could start now by acknowledging that all he has found so far is a
use of the surname Longespée for Ida in a book published in 1902 - in other
words, nothing new and not much of a discovery.
If and when he tries to do the work of a dedicated researcher, and
consequently presents or cites the actual words of the lady in question,
instead of contenting himself with the mere skimming of secondary accounts
and extracts, it will be time to wonder if he may ever be willing and able
to "recognise the benefits of effective peer review" or indeed to "adopt
proper scholarly standards". But not yet.
Peter Stewart
news:1180119129.498102.45970@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 19:29, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
I received a rather remarkable email privately from Mr Richardson
in which among other remarks he chides me for not "thanking" him
for his find. And stating, in conjuction that he "doesn't like
freeloaders."
<snip>
Will, fear not - you are in good company. Douglas adopted the tactic
of emailing me off-list before resorting to his usual habit of hiding
in the long grass; now, rather than engaging with any issues raised,
he ignores them, like a child with his hands over his ears. Listers
can make of this what they will - I find it a sad waste, given the
time he clearly spends on relevant research. Let's simply concentrate
on discussing the merits and logic of the material presented - there's
nothing personal in this public discussion, just a desire to prevent
the poor scholarship that mars otherwise useful work from infecting
the public record. I am sure that Douglas will recognise the benefits
of effective peer review and encouragement to adopt proper scholarly
standards in due course: that's part of true collegiality.
Well, he could start now by acknowledging that all he has found so far is a
use of the surname Longespée for Ida in a book published in 1902 - in other
words, nothing new and not much of a discovery.
If and when he tries to do the work of a dedicated researcher, and
consequently presents or cites the actual words of the lady in question,
instead of contenting himself with the mere skimming of secondary accounts
and extracts, it will be time to wonder if he may ever be willing and able
to "recognise the benefits of effective peer review" or indeed to "adopt
proper scholarly standards". But not yet.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 23 Mai, 16:04, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Douglas
Just out of interest - is the above Lacock document the "evidence" on
which you base your assertion that Ela de Odingseles remarried after
William's death?
Also, given your statement that Ela and William had one son, Edmund,
and four daughters, who is this Robert supposed to be? Does he fit in
to the pedigree, or is this another "weakness" in the document? NB
the text of the document at this point actually reads: "de qua genuit
Robertum, qui..."
Best wishes, Michael
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 472 (sub FitzWalter) identified Ida, wife
of Walter Fitz Robert, as "daughter of William (Longespée), Earl of
Salisbury." Complete Peerage, 11 (1949): 381-382 footnote k (sub
Salisbury) confuses Walter Fitz Robert's wife Ida with her sister of
the same name who married William de Beauchamp; it also misidentifies
Walter Fitz Robert's parentage.
The identification of Ida, wife of Walter Fitz Robert, has
traditionally rested on a pedigree of the Longespée family found in
Lacock Priory cartulary. This pedigree lists the various children of
William Longespée I, Earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury, including:
"Idam de Camyle, quam duxit in uxorem Walterus fil. Roberti, de qua
genuit Catherinam et Loricam, quæ velatæ erant apud Lacok; Elam, quam
duxit primo Guillelmus de Dodingeseles, de qua genuit Robertum")
Dear Douglas
Just out of interest - is the above Lacock document the "evidence" on
which you base your assertion that Ela de Odingseles remarried after
William's death?
Also, given your statement that Ela and William had one son, Edmund,
and four daughters, who is this Robert supposed to be? Does he fit in
to the pedigree, or is this another "weakness" in the document? NB
the text of the document at this point actually reads: "de qua genuit
Robertum, qui..."
Best wishes, Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 25 Mai, 22:32, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
During the 2002 discussion of this same subject, it was noted that CP
refers to two different birthdates for the Countess Ela: c1191 but
also 1187 (CP 11:377, 382). Additionally, Vicki Elam White pointed
out that the Liber de Lacock (Bowles, Antiquities of Lacock Abbey)
states that Ela was born at Amesbury in 1188.
MA-R
In a message dated 05/25/07 07:35:52 Pacific Standard Time, royalances....@msn.com writes:
As such, it is is highly unlikely
that Ela de Oddingseles was a daughter of William Longespée I and his
wife, Ela of Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury
was born c.1191.
Gerald Paget as quoted by Leo herehttp://www.genealogics.org/getperso ... 6&tree=LEO
seems to think your date is wrong.
Maybe it's based on something or maybe not.
Will Johnson
During the 2002 discussion of this same subject, it was noted that CP
refers to two different birthdates for the Countess Ela: c1191 but
also 1187 (CP 11:377, 382). Additionally, Vicki Elam White pointed
out that the Liber de Lacock (Bowles, Antiquities of Lacock Abbey)
states that Ela was born at Amesbury in 1188.
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1180165622.050575.157560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
This information is in the confused extract printed in Monasticon, vol. vi
part 1 p. 501, that was cited in this thread:
"Patricius vero...genuit ex uxore sua Ela, Gulielmum comitem Sarum,
Gulielmus vero duxit in uxorem Alianoram de Viteri; de qua genuit filiam
unicam, nomine Elam, A.D. 1188, quae data est domino Gulielmo Longespee
filio regis Henrici secundi...Ela ergo uxore Guil. Lungespee primi, nata
fuit apud Ambresbiriam..."
Peter Stewart
news:1180165622.050575.157560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 22:32, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 05/25/07 07:35:52 Pacific Standard
Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:
As such, it is is highly unlikely that Ela de Oddingseles was
a daughter of William Longespée I and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury was born
c.1191.
Gerald Paget as quoted by Leo
herehttp://www.genealogics.org/getperso ... 6&tree=LEO
seems to think your date is wrong.
Maybe it's based on something or maybe not.
Will Johnson
During the 2002 discussion of this same subject, it was noted that CP
refers to two different birthdates for the Countess Ela: c1191 but
also 1187 (CP 11:377, 382). Additionally, Vicki Elam White pointed
out that the Liber de Lacock (Bowles, Antiquities of Lacock Abbey)
states that Ela was born at Amesbury in 1188.
This information is in the confused extract printed in Monasticon, vol. vi
part 1 p. 501, that was cited in this thread:
"Patricius vero...genuit ex uxore sua Ela, Gulielmum comitem Sarum,
Gulielmus vero duxit in uxorem Alianoram de Viteri; de qua genuit filiam
unicam, nomine Elam, A.D. 1188, quae data est domino Gulielmo Longespee
filio regis Henrici secundi...Ela ergo uxore Guil. Lungespee primi, nata
fuit apud Ambresbiriam..."
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
On 26 Mai, 09:49, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Thanks, Peter - I must add a copy of Monasticon to my want-list.
Cheers, Michael
m...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1180165622.050575.157560@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 25 Mai, 22:32, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 05/25/07 07:35:52 Pacific Standard
Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:
As such, it is is highly unlikely that Ela de Oddingseles was
a daughter of William Longespée I and his wife, Ela of
Salisbury. It is fairly certain that Ela of Salisbury was born
c.1191.
Gerald Paget as quoted by Leo
herehttp://www.genealogics.org/getperso ... 6&tree=LEO
seems to think your date is wrong.
Maybe it's based on something or maybe not.
Will Johnson
During the 2002 discussion of this same subject, it was noted that CP
refers to two different birthdates for the Countess Ela: c1191 but
also 1187 (CP 11:377, 382). Additionally, Vicki Elam White pointed
out that the Liber de Lacock (Bowles, Antiquities of Lacock Abbey)
states that Ela was born at Amesbury in 1188.
This information is in the confused extract printed in Monasticon, vol. vi
part 1 p. 501, that was cited in this thread:
"Patricius vero...genuit ex uxore sua Ela, Gulielmum comitem Sarum,
Gulielmus vero duxit in uxorem Alianoram de Viteri; de qua genuit filiam
unicam, nomine Elam, A.D. 1188, quae data est domino Gulielmo Longespee
filio regis Henrici secundi...Ela ergo uxore Guil. Lungespee primi, nata
fuit apud Ambresbiriam..."
Thanks, Peter - I must add a copy of Monasticon to my want-list.
Cheers, Michael
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Another C.P. Addition: Ida Longespée, wife of Walter Fit
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1180170921.120759.29850@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The 1817-1830 edition is available online at
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
Peter Stewart
news:1180170921.120759.29850@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Thanks, Peter - I must add a copy of Monasticon to my want-list.
The 1817-1830 edition is available online at
http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/bibliogra ... il&id=2659
Peter Stewart