I know this is drudging up an old post, but I've been trying to sort out the Ferrers family recently. The older genealogies (Burkes, etc.) have numerous errors, conflating different branches of the Ferrers family, and those that don't even seem to be Ferrers. 1. fitz Walchelin line. That the fitz Walchelin line is in any way related to the Ferrers seems to be based totally on given name usage. Yes, they were prominent under tenants, of the Ferrers, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence they were anything more than that. In an 1141 charter of Robert II de Ferrers, Robert fitz Walchelin is specifically stated to be "Robertus filius Walkelini de Roburna". Monasticon Anglicanum: Tutbury NUM VII https://books.google.ca/books?id=r71LN35ZEG4C&pg=PA393&lpg=PA393&dq "Walchelinus de Raborna" was a teste to a charter under Robert I de Ferrers (1100-1139). Monasticon Anglicanum: Tutbury NUM XI https://books.google.ca/books?id=r71LN35ZEG4C&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq In the Red book of the Exchequer, at the time of Henry I, a Robert and a William, both said to be sons of Walchelin, are listed, and Robert's property is said, in 1166, to be held by his son, also named Robert. William's property was apparently held by Geoffrey Marmion in 1166. At around that time (1166-1190) there is also a deed to a Henry son of Robert son of Walchelin. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5414382 The 1166 Robert is often described as the one who marries Margaret de Grendon, daughter of Ermentrude, through which more Egginton property comes his way, and whose daughters inherit in 1238/9. But, this doesn't make sense. This Robert is already an adult, by 1166. He'd have to be born before 1145. That would have him living until he's about 90, and not having his daughters until he's in his 70s. Ermentrude is often also made out to be marrying a Ferrers, or to be a Ferrers herself, which is nonsense. A Built Heritage Statement seems to make more sense, which includes a Robert III fitz Walchelin whose daughters inherit. http://planning.south-derbys.gov.uk/documents/pa/2015/9_2015_0768%20Heritage%20Statement%20(ADDITIONAL%20v2).pdf This also makes more sense, based on the dates for William de Grendon, Quintin Talbot, and Henry fitz Gerald, said to be 3 husbands of Ermentrude. Daughter Margaret de Grendon appears to be born around 1200-1202, married off and having children by the age of 15 or 16 (mother Ermentrude appears to have first married young, as well, and still having children with 3rd husband fitz Gerald at around the same time Margaret is getting married), and likewise for Margaret's own daughters. One of those daughters is also named Ermentrude, which is where the conflation with her grandmother and, in turn, conflation with the fitz Walchelins being Ferrers, comes into play. Margaret's Ermentrude, however, is not a Ferrers, and marries William de Stafford. Another possibility for a Robert III is in a reference to a Robert son of Henry son of Walchelin. Maybe a Robert, son of Henry, inherited from his uncle, Robert II. As for William fitz Walchelin, his daughter Hawise appears to be coming of age, about 1199, and he dies about 1213. He could possibly be a younger brother of the Robert and Henry generation. If he comes of age about 1171, and is born about 1150, then he'd still only be about 34, if Hawise is born about 1184. Whatever the case, there's nothing to indicate the fitz Walchelin line is actually related to the Ferrers. This line may descend from the Ascelin in Egginton, in 1086, sometimes spelled Wascelin. 2. Ferrers of Rutland/Oakham. The descent of this line comes from a William de Ferrers (1060-1131). Most accounts have him as the son of Henry, who came with the conqueror. This is problematic. Some accounts say Robert I inherits because his older brothers Engenulf and William died before their father, Henry, did. On a similar note, some accounts say Engenulf and William are the same person, and he died before his father, Henry. The problem with these theories are that the Rutland William had heirs, 3 sons, yet none of the property ever held by Henry seems to be held by this line. Engenulf is said to have been given Duffield, by his father, but that property ends up in Robert I's hands, as well, apparently skipping an older brother William, if he existed, and his heirs. On the flip side, neither Henry, nor Robert I appear to hold any of the family's ancestral property, back in Normandy. William, however, does. And, when Normandy splits with England, it is William's line that keeps their Normandy property as their main inheritance, joins France, and leaves Oakham to a younger brother, who dies, leaving it to a sister. It is William who is travelling about Normandy with Robert, duke of Normandy, and off on the first Crusade with him. In 1086, Oakham is held directly by the king, and in 1166 this line is a direct tenant to the king in Oakham. It is not part of the greater Ferrers holdings, belonging to the Derby Ferrers. Everything seems to add up to the conclusion made by Auguste Le Prevost, that William was the son of Henry's older brother, also named William. The Conqueror's army was packed with younger sons wanting to make a name for themselves. Henry appears to be one of them, while his older brother, and his descendants, inherited the ancestral lands, back in Normandy. So, if Robert I, of the Derby line, did have a brother, William, he may have died before Henry, but nothing would suggest he's the same William at the top of the Oakham and Normandy line. This line is also sometimes conflated with the Derby line through William I de Ferrers, 3rd earl of Derby, and Walchelin de Ferrers, of Normandy and Oakham, both of whom go on the 3rd Crusade. The earl dies at the Siege of Acre, but Walchelin survives, and is found on later charters in Normandy. Some accounts seem to make them the same person, or add a Walchelin brother of William in this generation. 3. Walchelin and wife Goda. This couple seems to have been forced into the Ferrers and Toeni families again based purely on their first names. Walchelin de Derby was a moneyer/minter, during the Anarchy, who leaves his property to become a school, and lists all kinds of people he purchased land from, rather than inheriting from any of the Ferrers of Derby. Educational Charters and Documents 598 to 1909, p 111-112 https://books.google.ca/books?id=YlQHi9LKefEC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq The Schools of Medieval England, p 125 https://books.google.ca/books?id=Z4EmWXn2aCMC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 1:36:22 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote: <snip> > 2. Ferrers of Rutland/Oakham. > > The descent of this line comes from a William de Ferrers (1060-1131). Where did you find these dates for William? As far as I know, there is no record of his birth in 1060 or of his death in 1131 - the latter is actually counter to evidence, because his son Henri occurs several times holding the family's lands in England in the pipe roll compiled at Michaelmas 1130. (This used to be ascribed to 1131 and so the terminus ante quem for William's death was derived from that by 19th/early-20th century historians.) Henri's appearance in the pipe roll for 31 Henry I doesn't necessarily mean that he had only recently inherited by Michaelmas 1130 - William his father last occurs in the record of a judgment delivered in 1111, I think, though I haven't made a thorough search for him afterwards. Stapleton, who first gave the generally-accepted genealogy of this branch, noted that William was living 1090-1106. Lewis Loyd in his study of the family repeated this, stating that William was "Living 1106. Dead 1131". Peter Stewart

On 11/05/2017 1:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: > I know this is drudging up an old post, but I've been trying to sort out the Ferrers family recently. The older genealogies (Burkes, etc.) have numerous errors, conflating different branches of the Ferrers family, and those that don't even seem to be Ferrers. <snip> > 2. Ferrers of Rutland/Oakham. > > The descent of this line comes from a William de Ferrers (1060-1131). Most accounts have him as the son of Henry, who came with the conqueror. This is problematic. Some accounts say Robert I inherits because his older brothers Engenulf and William died before their father, Henry, did. On a similar note, some accounts say Engenulf and William are the same person, and he died before his father, Henry. The problem with these theories are that the Rutland William had heirs, 3 sons, yet none of the property ever held by Henry seems to be held by this line. Engenulf is said to have been given Duffield, by his father, but that property ends up in Robert I's hands, as well, apparently skipping an older brother William, if he existed, and his heirs. > > On the flip side, neither Henry, nor Robert I appear to hold any of the family's ancestral property, back in Normandy. William, however, does. And, when Normandy splits with England, it is William's line that keeps their Normandy property as their main inheritance, joins France, and leaves Oakham to a younger brother, who dies, leaving it to a sister. It is William who is travelling about Normandy with Robert, duke of Normandy, and off on the first Crusade with him. > > In 1086, Oakham is held directly by the king, and in 1166 this line is a direct tenant to the king in Oakham. It is not part of the greater Ferrers holdings, belonging to the Derby Ferrers. > > Everything seems to add up to the conclusion made by Auguste Le Prevost, that William was the son of Henry's older brother, also named William. The Conqueror's army was packed with younger sons wanting to make a name for themselves. Henry appears to be one of them, while his older brother, and his descendants, inherited the ancestral lands, back in Normandy. > > So, if Robert I, of the Derby line, did have a brother, William, he may have died before Henry, but nothing would suggest he's the same William at the top of the Oakham and Normandy line. The evidence seems pretty clear to me that Robert did have a brother named William, and that their father Henry was the seigneur of Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire in Normandy rather than the younger brother of a seigneur named William with heirs of his own. Henri's three sons are named in the foundation charter of Turbury priory, written 1087/1100 in the reign of William Rufus ("ego Henricus de Ferrariis fundavi ecclesiam in honore sancte dei genetricis Marie apud castellum meum Tuttesbur’ pro anima W. regis et Matildis regine et pro salute anime patris mei et matris mee et uxoris mee Berte et filiorum meorum Eugenulphi [sic], W., Roberti ac filiarum mearum ... Hanc autem ecclesiam et quicquid huic ecclesie vel jam prebui vel deinceps prebere voluero per concessionem et auctoritatem W. junioris regis Anglorum dono ecclesie mee Tuttesbur’ et monachis meis ibidem deo servientibus sicut constitutum est apud Melbergam ante prefatum regem Willelmum.") Although the comma after Engenulf's name is presumably an editorial addition, I see no reason to think that this was one son with two names. "W." stood for the name William with both kings named, so why would Henri's son Robert not have a second brother named William? And if the William who became seigneur of Ferrières was an elder brother of Henri, why would the latter assume the conventional style of a seigneur in subscribing a charter of William the Conqueror in April 1067 ("Signum Henrici de Ferreris"), as also in the foundation charter of Tutbury quoted above? Younger brothers of seigneurs at this time were more usually identified only as sons of their father, not with their own territorial designation or surname. It was quite usual for Norman and English lands to be divided between different sons of seigneurs in the generation after the Conquest, with the eldest normally sticking to the Norman inheritance that was considered more secure. Peter Stewart