Hi Guys, I found this very interesting post at rootsweb.com <Archive of GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Messages> when I did a search for <Odard>. The message was posted by: <reedpcgen@aol.com >. The message is below!!!! This is making me <crazy>. Carole The points about Statham: (1) He cites many documents which prove that Richard Fitz Nigel was brother of William the COnstable. That is not in question. (2) He cites no document which shows that Richard was mentioned as a St. Sauveur, or in French records; only as brother of William in Chester. So his connection into the family hinges on William's. (3) Statham cites many documents which list the two WIlliam St. Sauveurs, sons of Nigel. But that was never in doubt. Keats-Rohan verifies this, as does Round. (4) Statham cites many documents pertaining to William FitzNigel, the constable of Chester, in Cheshire. This was never in doubt either, and is well attested. (5) There is no Cheshire document that calls WIlliam FitzNigel, the constable, a St. Saveur. There is no French document that calls William de St. Sauveur constable of Chester. (6) There is no factual document that shows that Nigel Vct. of St. Sauveur, served as constable of Chester, leaving his Frnch lands to live in a wasted area of England [!]. Remember that Cheshire was laid waste by the Conqueror. If you read through Domesday, you quickly discover that few of the manors were worth anything. It had been on the frontier, was the stronghold of Mercia and on the Welsh frontier. The land was prety much worthless for the most part. Chief tenants received far more revenues from manors they held in other counties (such as the Massey holdings in Hampshire and Wiltshire), or those who held of Earl Hugh in Lincoln or Yorkshire, than they did from comparable Cheshire manors. And Earl Hugh himself was not a wealthy man, in comparison. I posted some facts about revenues taken from Sydney Painter in a post about the Lacy family last January (check dejanews). So why on earth would someone like vct. Nigel leave his beautiful and comfortable region in France to live in the baren waste that was much of Cheshire to serve under Hugh d'Avranches? (7) Tait discusses the genealogical account to which you refer [Dugdale's Monasticon Anglianum vi. 315 and Ormerod i, 689-90]. Perhaps you will feel more comportable believing him, rather than me. He states that "Neel(Latinized Nigellus" "seems to be entirely absent from contemporary record." The account of the predecessors of those who made the donations for the foundations of the abbeys, etc., is referred to as the priory _Progenies_. The account of the father of Wililam FitzNigel was that Neel "is said to have come to England with earl Hugh of Chester accompanied by five brothers: Hudardus, Edwardus, Wolmerus, Horswinus and Wolftatus." The earl made Nigel constable and established him at Halton. Then Tait emphasizes: "The untrustworthiness of these monastic pedigrees in their early steps is notrious and though Hudard, more correctly Odard, was a historical person, a knight of the constable andncestor of the Dutton family, there is no evidence that he was uncle of William FitzNigel and THE OTHER NAMES in themselves REFUTE THE STORY for they are English not Norman and apparently imaginary [emphasis mine]." "It is noteworthy that no attempt is made in the _Progenies_ to identify the Norman family of Nigel. It was not until the sixteenth century that unscrupulous heralds linked him up with the vicomtes of the Cotentin whose seat was at Sait-Sauveur near Valognes.... Nigel is there said to have been son of Ivo, viscount of Cotentin, by a sister of a (misnamed) count of Brittany.... [T]here was no vicomte of the COtentin names Ivo in the eleventh century, there were actually two Neels, the younger of whom held the office from 1042 to 1092. He was, of course, hailed as the father of William fitzNigel and as the first baron of Halton and constable of Chester. But as the great French scholar, Leopold Delisle, pointed out in 1867, there is no evidence, other than Wace's "Romman de Rou" and a list of the followers of the Conqueror drawn up to exalt the Mohuns of Dunster Castle, that Nigel the vicomte took part in the Conquest of England. Had he been the first baron of Halton and constable of Chester, as the Cheshire historians have assumed, he would have held these positions in 1086 when DOmesday Book was drawn up, for he lived six years longer, but WIlliam fitzNigel held both at that date." (8) There were many Nigels in the Domesday book (in fact it is a fairly common name in ENgland after the Norman Conquest), but there os no evidence any of them was the father of WIlliam or Richard FitzNigel or Nigel de St. Sauveur. I have not yet, however, analyzed the holdings of the various Nigels to see if they were eventually held by William or Richard FitzNigel, but if so, it would be further refutation of the story. If Nigel, father of the Constable, was still alive in 1086, he should have been constable too. William FitzNigel is the first Constable of Chester of whom there is any evidence and was one of the two main landholders in Cheshire at Domesday (after Earl Hugh and Robert of Rhudlan). (9) So the only evidence that WIlliam FitzNigel was son of Nigel de St. Sauveur was that there were WIlliams and Nigels in bother families, or, "the name's the same game." This is very flimsy evidence indeed, considering the following: (10) The document presented by Round shoudls that Nigel, vct. de St. Sauveur, had two sons named William, three daughters, and two other sons, but no Richard is mentioned. So this would actually be evidence that Richard did not belong to this family. So since he was definitely William FitzNigel of Chester's brother, this means he does not fit there either. One could decide that Richar must be illegitimate to justify that he was not mentioned, but in many cases illegitimate sons went into orders, and beside, one has to make this up to FORCE the connection. There is no evidence or indication of it. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong as soon as anything to the contrart surfaces, but until then, it seems a pretty solid case. I await to see what Keats-Rohan says. She may have solved the problem, but her article about the descendants of Bilihildis is not out yet and COEL is not set for release until November or later. Have I messed up anywhere? pcr