On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 1:01:05 PM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote: ... > I don't have a copy of a 1530 visitation. There is a pedigree in > Flowers' vistation of 1563-4. It seems similar to yours except that the > Richard of the 2nd generation is simply dismissed as "dyed yonge" with > no mention of a marriage. Thomas is given 3 sons but no other detail. > If you haven't got that visitation I can send you the relevant pages off > list. > > A likely source of discrepancies is that Tong's informant wasn't the > same person as the author of your document. > > BTW, does the 1530 visitation have Kay[e] in it? > For the 1530 visitation see, https://archive.org/stream/heraldicvisitati00tongrich#page/n96/mode/1up

On 2/05/2016 9:15 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 2/05/2016 7:02 AM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote: >> Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al, >> >> Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions? >> >> [1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo >> >> [Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?] > It is a particularly strong - I would say conclusive - inference from > Matilda's charter that Geoffrey's mother was the daughter and heiress of > Eudo - note that the empress stated "Et haec reddo ei ut rectum suum ut > habeat et teneat haereditabiliter" regarding the Norman estates and > dapiferate, and "quia hoc est rectum suum" regarding the English > inheritance. > I should have added that Round disagreed with this - he noted "The clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship existed, but it was probably collateral, instead of lineal." The only source we have (albeit less than fully reliable) makes the relationship direct through Eudo's daughter Margaret. Round's probability contradicting this was based on the estates of Eudo escheating to the Crown at his death - but why this would happen despite a collateral rather than direct heir having rights to the inheritance he did not discuss. Henry I was not the most scrupulous legalist of the age. Evidently Geoffrey's mother was already dead, or at least not able to carry this great power to her second husband Otuel. Peter Stewart

On 2/05/2016 7:02 AM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote: > Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al, > > Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions? > > [1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo > > [Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?] It is a particularly strong - I would say conclusive - inference from Matilda's charter that Geoffrey's mother was the daughter and heiress of Eudo - note that the empress stated "Et haec reddo ei ut rectum suum ut habeat et teneat haereditabiliter" regarding the Norman estates and dapiferate, and "quia hoc est rectum suum" regarding the English inheritance. > > [2] Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose > > [Position taken - I have discovered no positive evidence, and no evidence has been made available to me, to establish that Margaret was the daughter of Rose de Clare. However, I have not identified any evidence that she is not. The reference to the "movent clause" by Chester Waters does not seem particularly meaningful to me as I have seen a number of said clauses which were silent on known living children. Unless Margaret was deceased at the date of the charter, such absence does not seem meaningful. Does anyone else have any knowledge of why Rose cannot be, or is not likely to, be Margaret's mother?] > > [3] Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose > > [Position taken - this is not an unreasonable position to take in that Margaret was the dau. of Eudo Dapifer (inferred in #1 above) and Rose de Clare was Eudo's only known wife. However, conclusive evidence that Rose is Margaret's mother is lacking.] You would be hard-pressed to find an explicit source for the maternity of almost any woman in this era - even with the daughters of kings we often assume that the only known wife was the mother. Granted we are more likely to know of kings' marriages than those of dapifers, but nonetheless Occam's razor applies. > > Query: > > My other comment in my initial post was incorrect, I mean to say, I've read the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife Rose de Vere would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. In particular, that Geoffrey de Mandeville and Rose de Vere would be related in the 3rd degree by common descent from Richard de Brionne and Rose de Giffard under Hollister's pedigree chart, for example. > > Are you suggesting that this consanguinity was too close to be dispensed, or just that a record of dispensation is lacking? Peter Stewart

Katherine was the wife of Thomas Payne, son of Walter Payne and Cecily Steward. She was the mother of Katherine Payne who married William Stewart, of Elynor, married to Humphrey Guybon (previously to Anthony Hoogan and to James Audley, Mary, married to Robert Horseman, and Anne, married to Robert Chabbnor In her will, Katherine refers to her "Neece" Ann Fenner, "Daughter of Thomas Reade gentleman late of Wisbiche deceassed". Since she is very careful about distinguishing her relatives from those of her husband, it seems clear that Thomas was her brother and that her maiden name was Reade, but I have been unable to identify her parents. Her will indicates that she had considerable wealth, and thus one would suspect that she came from a prominent family. Does anyone have information about the Reade ancestors of this lady?

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:49:22 PM UTC+1, Peter Cockerill wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I have a quotation from a medieval manuscript on the ancestry of the Peck family of Wakefield. Sadly however no source cited! Any suggestions for a researcher to find the original manuscript welcome or is there another route? > > Peter Ian I am very grateful to you for this. Have you any idea what might have prompted this Peck to write this account of his lands and who for? Tong the Herald visited Yorkshire in 1530 and recorded the Peck line but his account doesn't correspond with the cited manuscript which was written three years later? Thank you again for your help. Peter

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:35:01 PM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 01/05/16 17:18, Ian Goddard wrote: > > I'll dig out the C15th books later & have a look. > > There's only a limited amount published from the C15th & no Peks in it. > > However, somewhat earlier we have a fair amount: > > WMR 4: > Tourn at Rastrick Tue after feast of St Luke, 9 Ed II, 1315, Margaret > wife of William Peke, brewed contrary to assize, 6d > > WMR 5: > Tourn Brighouse 25 Apr 1323, Wife of William Pek, brewing 3d > > Court Wakefield 14 Sep 1323, William Peck, cutting wood (I think), 8d, > Hipperholme > > Court W'fld 01 Jun 1324, H'holme, Matthew de Totehill surrenders 3 acres > in H'holme, demised to William Pek entry 20d > > Court R'ck 25 Jun 1324, H'holme, William Pek fined 3d & damages to > Thomas de Totehill for carrying off grass vale 2d > > Court W'field Fri after Michealmas 1324, H'holme, William Pek surrenders > toft containing 1 rood in H'hp;me to John son of Stephen, entry 12d > > Tourn B'hse 13 Dec 1324, Wife of William Peck, brewing 6d > > Court W'field 12 Mar 1324-5. H'holme William Pek, dry wood, 2d > > Tourn B'hse 07 May 1325 William Peck's wife, brewing 3d > > Court B'hse, 28 Oct 1326 H'holme, Willia Pech surrenders n > messauge & 10 acres in Brighouse to John s of Reger de Brighouse entry 6s 8d > > WCR III (later series) > Court Halifax 12 May 1332 H'holme Robert Pekke, dry wood 4d > > > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk

Hi Peter, Many thanks. I need to take some time to review & process the information kindly provided in this thread by you & others. One last follow-up, if you may indulge me. Do you have any further thoughts regarding the consanguinity issue? Cheers, Pete

Hi Peter, Many thanks for the informed & thoughtful reply. I respond as follows: [1]. As per consanguinity, I am not familiar enough with the subject, save for the basic and changing prohibitions, to know whether a relationship in the 3rd degree was likely to be ignored or readily accommodated with dispensation or, alternatively, whether the granting of a technically required dispensation was to be expected in a case like this but simply absent from the surviving record. I, generally, am loathe to rely on missing evidence to satisfy genealogical challenges. However, as I said earlier, I simply do not know enough about this topic to make any determinations. [2]. I just re-read the Hollister article on the Mandeville family you kindly quoted. Are you in agreement with his conclusions? The arguments, while I understand the logic and import, are too advanced for me to really hazard a guess as per who is correct - Round v Hollister. Again, I'm grateful for you & others taking the time to review & opine on my comments & queries. Cheers, Pete

On 1/05/2016 6:41 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > On 1/05/2016 5:41 PM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> Many thanks for the reply. I am familiar with what Keats-Rohan states regarding the parentage of Margaret, wife of William I de Mandeville. However, I continue to have difficulty reconciling it with, for example, the following: >> >> [1] 'The Complete Peerage, (1926), Vol. V, edited by Gibbs & Doubleday, pp. 113-114: >> >> "Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex." >> >> [2] 'Notes and Queries', (Jan-Jun, 1880), 6th series, vol. I, pp. 6-7: >> >> "This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter]. >> >> This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: - >> >> "Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters. >> > Chester Waters was wrong, Geoffrey de Mandeville was recognised as heir > to Eudo's estates and the dapiferate in Normandy, and all his estates in > England - see the charter of Matilda, pp. 201-102 no. 275, > https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/100/mode/2up: > > "Et do ei [comiti Gaufredo Essexe] totam terram quae fuit Eudonis > Dapiferi in Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius ... Et si dominus meus Comes > Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et > terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum quod habet totam > terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit > et vivus et mortuus". > > In the same charter Matilda made a grant to Geoffrey's maternal > half-brother William fitz Otuel, "Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio > Otvel fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi c libratas terrae de terris > escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et haereditate > pro servicio sue et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi." > > I should have added that the "positive proof" Chester Waters relied on is false - see p. 126 no. 1096*, https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl02davi#page/126/mode/2up. Peter Stewart

On 1/05/2016 5:41 PM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote: > Hi John, > > Many thanks for the reply. I am familiar with what Keats-Rohan states regarding the parentage of Margaret, wife of William I de Mandeville. However, I continue to have difficulty reconciling it with, for example, the following: > > [1] 'The Complete Peerage, (1926), Vol. V, edited by Gibbs & Doubleday, pp. 113-114: > > "Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex." > > [2] 'Notes and Queries', (Jan-Jun, 1880), 6th series, vol. I, pp. 6-7: > > "This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter]. > > This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: - > > "Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters. > Chester Waters was wrong, Geoffrey de Mandeville was recognised as heir to Eudo's estates and the dapiferate in Normandy, and all his estates in England - see the charter of Matilda, pp. 201-102 no. 275, https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/100/mode/2up: "Et do ei [comiti Gaufredo Essexe] totam terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius ... Et si dominus meus Comes Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum quod habet totam terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus et mortuus". In the same charter Matilda made a grant to Geoffrey's maternal half-brother William fitz Otuel, "Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio Otvel fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi c libratas terrae de terris escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et haereditate pro servicio sue et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi." Peter Stewart

On 01/05/16 17:18, Ian Goddard wrote: > I'll dig out the C15th books later & have a look. There's only a limited amount published from the C15th & no Peks in it. However, somewhat earlier we have a fair amount: WMR 4: Tourn at Rastrick Tue after feast of St Luke, 9 Ed II, 1315, Margaret wife of William Peke, brewed contrary to assize, 6d WMR 5: Tourn Brighouse 25 Apr 1323, Wife of William Pek, brewing 3d Court Wakefield 14 Sep 1323, William Peck, cutting wood (I think), 8d, Hipperholme Court W'fld 01 Jun 1324, H'holme, Matthew de Totehill surrenders 3 acres in H'holme, demised to William Pek entry 20d Court R'ck 25 Jun 1324, H'holme, William Pek fined 3d & damages to Thomas de Totehill for carrying off grass vale 2d Court W'field Fri after Michealmas 1324, H'holme, William Pek surrenders toft containing 1 rood in H'hp;me to John son of Stephen, entry 12d Tourn B'hse 13 Dec 1324, Wife of William Peck, brewing 6d Court W'field 12 Mar 1324-5. H'holme William Pek, dry wood, 2d Tourn B'hse 07 May 1325 William Peck's wife, brewing 3d Court B'hse, 28 Oct 1326 H'holme, Willia Pech surrenders n messauge & 10 acres in Brighouse to John s of Reger de Brighouse entry 6s 8d WCR III (later series) Court Halifax 12 May 1332 H'holme Robert Pekke, dry wood 4d -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

In alt.talk.royalty D. Spencer Hines <d_spencerhines@america.com> wrote: > Let's see some scholarly proof for your sack of unsubstantiated assertions - > or substitute a more earthy word of your choice. > > Facts, quotations, sources and citations -- and hypothetical rationales. > > ...Otherwise you are just bloviating. > > DSH You're being ridiculous. It is clearly documented that the announcements of new Companions of the Garter have as a rule been made on April 23rd since the 1960s, and no such announcement was made this year or last. There are three vacancies in the Order,the most recent by the death of the late Duke of Wellington at the end of 2014. > "Louis Epstein" wrote in message news:nfm3l5$1dv$2@reader1.panix.com... > > In alt.talk.royalty D. Spencer Hines <d_spencerhines@america.com> wrote: > >> Interesting... >> >> ...If indeed true. > > And how would it not be true? > No announcement of new Knights was made on the 23rd. > >> DSH >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Louis Epstein >> >> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:51 AM >> Newsgroups: alt.talk.royalty >> >> Subject: Days Without Knights! >> >> Since the 1960s the vacancies among the Companions of the Most Noble Order >> of the Garter have been filled by announcements made on St. George's Day, >> April 23rd. >> >> Since 2014 there have been three vacancies. >> >> In 2015 and now again in 2016...no announcements! >> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>-=-=- >>The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again, >>at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed. > >

On 01/05/16 16:31, Peter Cockerill wrote: > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 5:49:22 PM UTC+1, Peter Cockerill wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> I have a quotation from a medieval manuscript on the ancestry of the Peck family of Wakefield. Sadly however no source cited! Any suggestions for a researcher to find the original manuscript welcome or is there another route? >> >> Peter > > The following extract is from The Law Quarterly Review Vol 38 October 1922 page 464ff By WA Peck; > > 'We learn more from a manuscript record compiled in the sixteenth century by a member of the family, who writes; I toke this Raymembaransays owtt of divers other boks wythe yt Rentall of my lands syns the thmy yt I dyd occwpy Anno dni 1533. > The first of my hawnsytwrs of my name that I can find of was in King Richard the Second days on Rychard Pek & Margett his wife and he bowght in hys lyfe thym sartn lands in Halyfax & Gledelyfe and he & hys wife had usshew thre sons yt is say Rychard, John & Thomas & dyed att Halyfax God hayfe Mersey on hys sowle. [FH records 414 Richard Peck husband of Margaret, 417 son Richard, 418 son Thomas , 403 son John] > 'And hys son Rychard Pek was a man of Lawe and marryd Ellyn Kynge and he had no usshew wt her & she was sister to Sr John Kynge wecker of Halyfax. And the sayd Rychard Pek bowght fayre lands in King Henry the Syghts [sixths] thym & also byffore bowthe in Wakefield Halyfax Sowthe Howrom, Shelfe Hawle and in other playssys & dydd att Halyfax yt last yere of ye Rayne of Kynge Henry the Syght [probably 1461 rather than 1471] & was beryd att Halyfax Jesu hayfe mercy on hys sowle. [FH record 417] > John Pek hys Border marrd Isabell Lacye dowghtter of John Lacy of Cromwell bothom and had usshewe wtt her fowre sons Rychard Robartt Thomas & John & the same John Pek dyed att Halyfax byfoe Rychard Pek hys brother ytt was ye man of law God hayfe mercy on hys sowle. And Thomas Pek thayre brothe was a prest.' [FH record John 403, Richard 396, Robert 406, Thomas 405, John 413] > This brings us to firmer ground as the above can be checked by reference to the pedigrees recorded in the Heralds' Visitations.' The purchases are likely to be in the Wakefield Manorial Rolls (WMR). The bad news is that none are published for Richard II, more's the pity. I'll dig out the C15th books later & have a look. However, I can put the Peks in the Halifax area earlier than this: COURT held at Wakefeld on Friday after the Feast of the Decollation of St. John the Baptist [Aug. 29], 7 Edw. II. Robert Pek is fine 2d for escapes. This is part of a second of two long lists under SOURBY. As the list doesn't have it's own header it's not 100% clear that it belongs with the previous list and Robert isn't linked to any place. Nevertheless the list includes men from Ovenden, Illingworth, Howarth etc. so it does seem to be from that area. This is WMR vol 3 p65. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:07:05 PM UTC-4, al...@mindspring.com wrote: > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:40:57 PM UTC-4, taf wrote: > > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, Patricia Junkin via wrote: > > > Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the > > > father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct > > > that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare? > > > > No. Peter/Piers de Litegarshale and his wife Maud are the parents of Geoffrey FitsPiers, Earl of Essex, it's just that Maud is of unknown parentage. This Geoffrey FitzPiers was married Beatrice de Say, coheiress of her great-uncle Geoffrey de Mandeville, the previous Earl. On her death, he remarried to Aveline de Clare. He never took the name de Mandeville, but his sons by Beatrice used it. Geoffrey FitzPiers also had children by Avelina who never took the Mandeville name, nor did they have claim to Essex (which passed via Beatrice's daughter to Bohun, rather than to Aveline's son). > > > > taf > > Hi Todd > > I am confused I thought your post called Geoffrey FitzPiers and William Boclande maternal half-brothers. > > So that Maud didn't marry Hugh Boclande then? or she did but was not William's mother? > > Doug Smith Sorry I understand now she did marry Hugh as well.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 3:40:57 PM UTC-4, taf wrote: > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, Patricia Junkin via wrote: > > Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the > > father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct > > that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare? > > No. Peter/Piers de Litegarshale and his wife Maud are the parents of Geoffrey FitsPiers, Earl of Essex, it's just that Maud is of unknown parentage. This Geoffrey FitzPiers was married Beatrice de Say, coheiress of her great-uncle Geoffrey de Mandeville, the previous Earl. On her death, he remarried to Aveline de Clare. He never took the name de Mandeville, but his sons by Beatrice used it. Geoffrey FitzPiers also had children by Avelina who never took the Mandeville name, nor did they have claim to Essex (which passed via Beatrice's daughter to Bohun, rather than to Aveline's son). > > taf Hi Todd I am confused I thought your post called Geoffrey FitzPiers and William Boclande maternal half-brothers. So that Maud didn't marry Hugh Boclande then? or she did but was not William's mother? Doug Smith

Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al, Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions? [1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo [Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?] [2] Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose [Position taken - I have discovered no positive evidence, and no evidence has been made available to me, to establish that Margaret was the daughter of Rose de Clare. However, I have not identified any evidence that she is not. The reference to the "movent clause" by Chester Waters does not seem particularly meaningful to me as I have seen a number of said clauses which were silent on known living children. Unless Margaret was deceased at the date of the charter, such absence does not seem meaningful. Does anyone else have any knowledge of why Rose cannot be, or is not likely to, be Margaret's mother?] [3] Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose [Position taken - this is not an unreasonable position to take in that Margaret was the dau. of Eudo Dapifer (inferred in #1 above) and Rose de Clare was Eudo's only known wife. However, conclusive evidence that Rose is Margaret's mother is lacking.] Query: My other comment in my initial post was incorrect, I mean to say, I've read the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife Rose de Vere would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. In particular, that Geoffrey de Mandeville and Rose de Vere would be related in the 3rd degree by common descent from Richard de Brionne and Rose de Giffard under Hollister's pedigree chart, for example. I would appreciate any insight on the items above. Thank you. Cheers, Pete

Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare? Pat Sent from my iPhone > On May 1, 2016, at 12:59 PM, taf via <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:42:28 AM UTC-7, Patricia A. Junkin via wrote: >> I am curious as to whether we are discussing the same Geoffrey de >> Mandeville. > > No, you aren't. But wait, there's more. > >> >> "Adam de Talewrth (I) demised (chirograph) to G(eoffrey de >> Mandeville), son of Peter, Earl of Essex for 30 years from the coming >> of King Otho (King Otho the IV,1175-1218, to England) of the manor of >> Ditton: (Surrey) [Reign of John]."[1] (PRO) DL 25/1569 > > This is Geoffrey FitzPiers, who was a favorite of the king, given the marriage to Beatrice de Say, a grand-niece of the Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville being discussed. He was then made Earl of Essex, entailed to his children by her (even though Beatrice was only coheiress). These children took the Mandeville surname, but I don't think Geoffrey ever used that surname (although it is frequently assigned to him, in part because of the misconception below). > >> "Geoffrey Fitz Peter (s/o Piers de Lutegareshale and Maud de Mandeville), >> (c.1162 - 1213) who married first, Beatrice de Sai, daughter of William, >> de Say and 2) Aveline, daughter of Roger de Clare. Maud de Mandeville >> was the grand daughter of Adelize de Clare. > > This is an extremely unfortunate but longstanding error that continues to be perpetuated. Piers de Lutegareshale married a woman named Maud, also married Hugh de Boclande (I don't recall off hand which came first). Nothing is known about her parentage, in spite of the frequent claim she was a Mandeville. > > In the Essex article of New Complete Peerage, a table was produced to show the descent of the title, and because Geoffrey FitzPiers and his maternal half-brother William de Boclande, married the Say coheiresses to Mandeville, Piers de Ludegarshale, Maud (no surname given) and Hugh de Boclande were placed within the table, and arbitrarily arranged in an open space under the horizontal line connecting Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville's children. No vertical line linked Maud to the horizontal line, but its absence was ignored or overlooked and many took this as asserting that Maud was another of Earl Geoffrey's children. Books like Ancestral Roots explicitly cited that specific chart for the information, yet the chart doesn't say what it is claimed to say. > > taf > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:02:15 PM UTC-7, Patricia Junkin via wrote: > Thank you. If I understand correctly, we must eliminate Peter as the > father. Nevertheless, Geoffrey took the name Mandeville. Is it correct > that Geoffrey Fitz Piers married Aveline de Clare? No. Peter/Piers de Litegarshale and his wife Maud are the parents of Geoffrey FitsPiers, Earl of Essex, it's just that Maud is of unknown parentage. This Geoffrey FitzPiers was married Beatrice de Say, coheiress of her great-uncle Geoffrey de Mandeville, the previous Earl. On her death, he remarried to Aveline de Clare. He never took the name de Mandeville, but his sons by Beatrice used it. Geoffrey FitzPiers also had children by Avelina who never took the Mandeville name, nor did they have claim to Essex (which passed via Beatrice's daughter to Bohun, rather than to Aveline's son). taf

As I understand it Maud _____ was the mother of Earl Geoffrey and William de Boclande. She was not a Mandeville. I have seen speculation that she was a niece of Henri de Blois, Bishop of Winchester, based on her having his chapel after his death. Doug Smith

I am curious as to whether we are discussing the same Geoffrey de Mandeville. “Adam de Talewrth (I) demised (chirograph) to G(eoffrey de Mandeville), son of Peter, Earl of Essex for 30 years from the coming of King Otho (King Otho the IV,1175-1218, to England) of the manor of Ditton: (Surrey) [Reign of John].”[1] (PRO) DL 25/1569 "Geoffrey Fitz Peter (s/o Piers de Lutegareshale and Maud de Mandeville), (c.1162 - 1213) who married first, Beatrice de Sai, daughter of William, de Say and 2) Aveline, daughter of Roger de Clare. Maud de Mandeville was the grand daughter of Adelize de Clare. "Ditton, Long (St. Mary) the manors of Ditton and Talworth are noticed in the Domesday survey under the appellations of Ditone and Taleorde; and in the reign of John, some property here appears to have been given by Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, to the convent of St. Mary without Bishopsgate, London" Thank you for your response. Pat On May 1, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > > On 1/05/2016 5:41 PM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> Many thanks for the reply. I am familiar with what Keats-Rohan states regarding the parentage of Margaret, wife of William I de Mandeville. However, I continue to have difficulty reconciling it with, for example, the following: >> >> [1] 'The Complete Peerage, (1926), Vol. V, edited by Gibbs & Doubleday, pp. 113-114: >> >> "Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex." >> >> [2] 'Notes and Queries', (Jan-Jun, 1880), 6th series, vol. I, pp. 6-7: >> >> "This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter]. >> >> This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: - >> >> "Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters. >> > > Chester Waters was wrong, Geoffrey de Mandeville was recognised as heir > to Eudo's estates and the dapiferate in Normandy, and all his estates in > England - see the charter of Matilda, pp. 201-102 no. 275, > https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/100/mode/2up: > > "Et do ei [comiti Gaufredo Essexe] totam terram quae fuit Eudonis > Dapiferi in Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius ... Et si dominus meus Comes > Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et > terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum quod habet totam > terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit > et vivus et mortuus". > > In the same charter Matilda made a grant to Geoffrey's maternal > half-brother William fitz Otuel, "Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio > Otvel fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi c libratas terrae de terris > escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et haereditate > pro servicio sue et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi." > > Peter Stewart > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message