mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Don Duncan

mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av Don Duncan » 04 aug 2007 18:54:41

I recently bought the book "The Diaries of Lady Anne Clifford," D. J. H.
Clifford ed., Sutton Publishing, 2003 (reprinted 2005). In a descendant chart
showing the ancestors of Lady Anne, prepared presumably by the editor, the
earliest entry is "Roger de Clifford (1248-1282), son of Roger by Matilda de
Gournay" and then goes on to show Roger d. 1282's wife Isabella and the line
leading to Lady Anne.

Based on several secondary sources, including some postings in this newsgroup,
I had Roger's mother identified as Hawise Botterell (1225-1301), rather than
the Maud/Matilda (unknown surname) who had been married first to Hugh de
Gournay. There was no background information given in the book on the
ancestry of Roger de Clifford d. 1282.

However, since Maud's first marriage to Hugh de Gournay seems well established
(see Plantagenet Ancestry), and since she seems to have married Roger de
Clifford d. 1285 in ca 1241, and since she d. 1255-1272 and since Roger d.
1282 was born in 1248, it seems reasonable that Maud should be his mother,
rather than Hawise. I haven't found a marriage date for Roger d. 1285 and
Hawise, and all the sources I have for all these dates are secondary (at
least). However, a scan of the archives showed a couple of postings claiming
Hawise as the mother, but in a matter-of-fact way, without defense or clear
sourcing.

Is it known who the mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282 was? Any advice
greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

Don Duncan

WJhonson

Re: mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av WJhonson » 06 aug 2007 20:09:12

<<In a message dated 08/04/07 11:00:38 Pacific Standard Time, dpduncan@comporium.net writes:
Based on several secondary sources, including some postings in this newsgroup,
I had Roger's mother identified as Hawise Botterell (1225-1301), rather than
the Maud/Matilda (unknown surname) who had been married first to Hugh de
Gournay. There was no background information given in the book on the
ancestry of Roger de Clifford d. 1282. >>



As you found out, some messages, even here, are based on... nothing. Nothing at all. Idle speculation, guesses, made-up garbage on a rainy day.

Go to Google Books and type

Hawise "Countess of Lorraine"

just like that.

What do you get? Nothing. Not one single source names the person, if she existed, in this way.
However we see lots of unsourced online trees that name her this way. Of course they are unsourced! Now if you can find a source, look at that underlying source. So if someone says AR7, Look into that source and find out what *their* source is. At least you'll make some progress that way.


So your first step might be to figure out what her real name and title were, and who says it, and whether they have a *useful* source.

Will Johnson

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 aug 2007 21:07:36

No, you are confused.

The standard source is _The House of Clifford_. See Chapter 11.

BUT:

Check CP III, 290-291.

AND:

CP XIV, 188

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

In a message dated 08/04/07 11:00:38 Pacific Standard Time,
dpduncan@comporium.net writes:
Based on several secondary sources, including some postings in this
newsgroup,
I had Roger's mother identified as Hawise Botterell (1225-1301), rather
than
the Maud/Matilda (unknown surname) who had been married first to Hugh de
Gournay. There was no background information given in the book on the
ancestry of Roger de Clifford d. 1282.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 06 aug 2007 21:12:41

No, you are confused.

The standard source is _The House of Clifford_. See Chapter 11.

BUT:

Check CP III, 290-291.

AND:

CP XIV, 188

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

In a message dated 08/04/07 11:00:38 Pacific Standard Time,

dpduncan@comporium.net writes:

Based on several secondary sources, including some postings in this
newsgroup, I had Roger's mother identified as Hawise Botterell
(1225-1301), rather than the Maud/Matilda (unknown surname)
who had been married first to Hugh de Gournay. There was no
background information given in the book on the
ancestry of Roger de Clifford d. 1282.

Gjest

Re: mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 aug 2007 06:41:28

Will

check the archives

The countess was on topice a few years ago
This came from Douglas Richardson,,,,,,,,,

FYI

Dear Newsgroup ~

As the new ancestry of Margaret de Brewes, wife of Sir Thomas de
Monthermer, is traced out, one interesting genealogical puzzle which
is
immediately encountered is the identity of Margaret's maternal
grandmother, the mysterious Countess of Loretto, 2nd wife of Sir Roger
de Clifford (died 1285), of Tenbury, Worcestershire.

According to published accounts, Roger de Clifford went to the Holy
Land with Prince Edward of England in 1271. On their return home two
years later in 1273, Roger was present with Philippe, Count of Savoy
and Burgundy, and others, when William, Lord of Toron on the Rhine,
did
homage to King Edward I at the castle of St. Georges, near Beaufort in
France. Having lost his wife, Maud, Sir Roger de Clifford "now paid
his addresses" to the Countess of Loretto, "whom he met in this castle
of St. Georges, where he married her, with great solemnity, after
having settled upon her his manor of Weverham in Cheshire."
[Reference:
Arthur Clifford, Collectanea Cliffordiana (1817): 176].

That Sir Roger de Clifford's wife held the Italian title of Countess
of
Loretto is confirmed by several records, among them Calendar of Close
Rolls, 1272-1279, pp. 450, 518. In the former record she is styled
"Contissa, countess of Lorett[o]" and in the latter record she is
styled "Contesse Loretti."

Hugh Clifford includes a long and somewhat rambling discussion
regarding the Countess of Loretto in his book, House of Clifford:

"At about this time Roger Clifford himself married in France as his
second wife, a mysterious lady variously described as the Countess of
Loretto, Lorette or Lauretania, whom he is said to have married at
Saint-Georges near the castle of Beaufort. There are two possible
theories concerning this lady's identity. She may have been the Dame
de Lorette-sur-Loire, though there is nothing to identify her as such
beyond the fact that the marriage took lace at St. Georges-du-Bois,
near Beaufort-en-Vallee (Maine-et-Loire) not far from Angers. A more
probable candidate is a member of the noble family of
Milly-en-Gatinois. Perenelle de Milly, Countess of Loretto in Italy,
in the early 14th century, was the daughter of Geoffrey de Milly,
Seneschal of the Kingdom of Naples during the last couple of decades
of
the 13th century. The family had been prominent in Outremer and with
the Templars from the 12th century, and was closely related by blood
and marriage to the families of Joinville and Dampierre. It will be
remembered that Geoffrey de Joinville, Comte de Vaucouleurs, had
married the Cliffords' neighbor Maud de Lacy, and their daughter,
Jeanne de Joinville was the wife of Roger de Mortimer, while two of
her
sisters were nuns at Aconbury. Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders,
Marquis of Namur, had taken part in the crusade to Tunis in 1270, and
was present at the deathbed of St. Louis. He had 19 children by two
wives, and his third son, Philip de Dampierre, was created Count of
Chieti in the kingdom of Naples. It is probable that Roger de
Clifford's wife was a member of one of these families, and that his
marriage would have strengthened the already existing bonds between
the
Cliffords and these powerful French nobles. As to the place of
marriage, Sir Iain Moncreiffe suggests St.-Georges-de-Reneins (Rhone)
not far from Villefranche-sur-Saone, where Edward I and a thousand
picked men fought a strange mele with the Count of Chalons, in
response
to the count's challenge received while the crusaders had passed
through Italy. This would certainly be closer to the Milly, Joinvlle
and Dampierre estates that Saint-Georges-du-Bois." END OF QUOTE.
[Reference: Hugh Clifford, The House of Clifford, pp. 47-48].

Regarding Mr. Clifford's first theory regarding the Countess of
Loretto's identity, it is impossible to think that a woman holding the
French manor of de Lorette-sur-Loire would derive an Italian title
such
Countess of Loretto from this possession. Why Mr. Clifford would
suggest such a silly notion is beyond me. As to his second theory,
Mr.
Clifford is on more solid ground. He notes that there was a certain
Pernel de Milly who was Countess of Loretto in the early 1300's. So,
he has the correct title. He supposes that this woman might have been
Roger de Clifford's 2nd wife. However, his own book shows that Roger
de Clifford's 2nd wife and surviving widow, the Countess of Loretto,
died in 1301. As such, she could hardly be the same woman as Pernel
de
Milly who occurs after this date. So then who was Roger de Clifford's
wife?

The solution to this puzzle is actually somewhat simple. Pernel de
Milly's husband, Sir Philippe de Dampierre, was Count of Chieti in
Italy just as Hugh Clifford states. I've found evidence that he was
also known as Count of Loretto. This is proven by four records in the
period, 1304-1305, recorded in the Calendar of Close Rolls, 1302-1307,
pp. 162, 167, 209, 260. Mr. Clifford tells us that Philippe de
Dampierre "was created Count of Chieti in the kingdom of Naples."
However, this is not true. What took place is that Philippe de
Dampierre had an earlier marriage to a woman who was Countess of
Chieti
in her own right. Her name was Mahaut (or Maud) de Courtenay, and she
was the daughter and sole heiress of Raoul de Courtenay, Count of
Chieti (died 1271). According to Detlev Schwennicke, Mahaut de
Courtenay was born c. 1254. Her marriage to Philippe de Dampierre
allegedly took place c. 1284 at Wynendale, South Flanders, in modern
Belgium.

From the dates, it seems that Mahaut de Courtenay was nearly 30 at her
marriage to Philippe de Dampierre. This age at marriage is highly

unlikely given that she was an heiress and a member of the important
Courtenay family. If so, it would seem probable that Mahaut de
Courtenay had an earlier marriage than her known marriage to Sir
Philippe de Dampierre. Who then was Mahaut's first husband? It
appears he was Sir Roger de Clifford, of Tenbury, Worcestershire.
While conclusive evidence is still lacking, we know from Detlev
Schwennicke that Mahaut de Courtenay was Countess of Chieti in her own
right. If so, then it seems a good bet that she was also known as
Countess of Loretto, just we know her husband, Philippe de Dampierre,
was known as both Count of Chieti and Count of Loretto. We are told
by
Hugh Clifford that Roger de Clifford's wife died in 1301. Detlev
Schwennicke states that Mahaut de Courtenay, wife of Sir Philippe de
Dampierre, died in 1303. The dates are very close. Following Mahaut
de Courtenay's death, Sir Philippe de Dampierre married (2nd) Pernel
de
Milly, who Clifford notes was known as Countess of Loretto. Next, we
know that Sir Roger de Clifford died in or about 1285 [Reference: Hugh
Clifford, House of Clifford, pg. 49]. Schwennicke states that Mahaut
de Courtenay married c. 1284 to Philippe de Dampierre. Again, the
dates are very close. Lastly, we know that Roger de Clifford's widow,
the Countess of Loretto, was living abroad from 1293 to at least 1296
[Reference: Ibid.]. If she was re-married to a foreigner, this would
readily account for her absence from England.

So, was Mahaut de Courtenay the 2nd wife of Sir Roger de Clifford? As
best I can tell, yes, she was. However, this matter deserves further
study to make a final determination.

In closing, I wish to thank my friend, Brent Ruesch, who worked on
this
genealogical puzzle with me today at the Family History Library here
in
Salt Lake City. It's good to have friends, especially when they're as
knowledgeable about genealogical matters as Mr. Ruesch.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net



On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:09:12 -0700, WJhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

In a message dated 08/04/07 11:00:38 Pacific Standard Time, dpduncan@comporium.net writes:
Based on several secondary sources, including some postings in this newsgroup,
I had Roger's mother identified as Hawise Botterell (1225-1301), rather than
the Maud/Matilda (unknown surname) who had been married first to Hugh de
Gournay. There was no background information given in the book on the
ancestry of Roger de Clifford d. 1282.



As you found out, some messages, even here, are based on... nothing. Nothing at all. Idle speculation, guesses, made-up garbage on a rainy day.

Go to Google Books and type

Hawise "Countess of Lorraine"

just like that.

What do you get? Nothing. Not one single source names the person, if she existed, in this way.
However we see lots of unsourced online trees that name her this way. Of course they are unsourced! Now if you can find a source, look at that underlying source. So if someone says AR7, Look into that source and find out what *their* source is. At least you'll make some progress that way.


So your first step might be to figure out what her real name and title were, and who says it, and whether they have a *useful* source.

Will Johnson

To Reply: remove Bkts and word DOT and put a dot. Stops Spam

Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 07 aug 2007 07:09:26

On Aug 6, 8:08 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< As a follow-up question, I'm not understanding how Contessa,
Countess of Loretto is related to the other people you named, the
Courtenay's, Dampierre's,etc.
<
< I'm missing how they link together.
<
< Will

There really isn't much of a mystery here. The given name of Sir
Roger de Clifford's second wife was Countess (or, if you prefer,
Comtesse). She was also styled Countess of Loretto. I can cite
English records which bear this out. Countess is a female given name
in this time period. It is also a title. In this case, the woman's
given name was Countess, and she also had the title of Countess. This
is a bit confusing, needless to say.

My guess is that Countess, wife of Sir Roger, was the surviving widow
of Raoul de Courtenay, Count of Chieti in Italy, who died in 1271.
Countess, wife of Sir Roger, would thus be the step-mother of Mahaut
de Courtenay, Countess of Chieti, who was the wife of Philip of
Flanders.

Countess, wife of Sir Roger de Clifford, died in 1301. Philip of
Flanders began appearing in English records as Count of Loretto in
1304, following Countess de Clifford's' death. I haven't yet
confirmed that Raoul de Courtenay, Philippe's father-in-law, was known
as Count of Loretto. My research so far indicates only that Raoul was
given Chieti in Italy in 1269, shortly before his death in 1271 by
King Charles of Naples. He may possible have been given Loretto at
the same time as Chieti.

Inasmuch as Countess and Sir Roger were married in France, it's likely
guess that Countess was of French origin like Raoul de Courtenay.
Beyond this, I have nothing fiurther to add to this discussion at this
time.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Mother of Roger de Clifford d. 1282

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 aug 2007 13:17:00

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1186466966.658238.41610@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 8:08 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
As a follow-up question, I'm not understanding how Contessa,
Countess of Loretto is related to the other people you named, the
Courtenay's, Dampierre's,etc.

I'm missing how they link together.

Will

There really isn't much of a mystery here. The given name of Sir
Roger de Clifford's second wife was Countess (or, if you prefer,
Comtesse). She was also styled Countess of Loretto. I can cite
English records which bear this out. Countess is a female given name
in this time period. It is also a title. In this case, the woman's
given name was Countess, and she also had the title of Countess. This
is a bit confusing, needless to say.

My guess is that Countess, wife of Sir Roger, was the surviving widow
of Raoul de Courtenay, Count of Chieti in Italy, who died in 1271.
Countess, wife of Sir Roger, would thus be the step-mother of Mahaut
de Courtenay, Countess of Chieti, who was the wife of Philip of
Flanders.

Countess, wife of Sir Roger de Clifford, died in 1301. Philip of
Flanders began appearing in English records as Count of Loretto in
1304, following Countess de Clifford's' death. I haven't yet
confirmed that Raoul de Courtenay, Philippe's father-in-law, was known
as Count of Loretto. My research so far indicates only that Raoul was
given Chieti in Italy in 1269, shortly before his death in 1271 by
King Charles of Naples. He may possible have been given Loretto at
the same time as Chieti.

Inasmuch as Countess and Sir Roger were married in France, it's likely
guess that Countess was of French origin like Raoul de Courtenay.
Beyond this, I have nothing fiurther to add to this discussion at this
time.

Another guess, based on nothing better than the wish to cover up your last
appalling hash at it, that - according to your own boast - took 15 years of
work to get completely wrong.

If you had bothered to research this properly, you would have found that
Philippe of Flanders became count of Loreto only ca 1302/3, and that the
wife of the previous count (who was not Raoul de Courtenay) was named
Beatrice, not Comitissa.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»