On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 8:29:08 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > Greetings, > > Is there a consensus as to the parentage of Pernel de Grandmesnil, wife of Robert, Earl of Leicester? Seems to me this is somewhat important given her descent from Hugh, both a Domesday holder and Companion to the Conqueror. Or perhaps not. But here's what I've found: > > Richardson, in MCS (2005) 683 has her as the daughter of William, appearing to cite Crouch Beaumont Twins (1986) 91 and Keats-Rohan DP (1999) 263. In RA (2013) 3:559 he has her as the daughter of Hugh, appearing to cite Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum. > > Crouch in Beaumont Twins 91n calls her a daughter of William, citing “a charter of hers to St Evroult commemorates him by name, Ctl St-Evroult, ii fol 33v” (in Bibliothèque Nationale). Crouch mentions a suggestion in CP 7:533n that she was the daughter of Hugh, but his conclusion was that her charter overruled that suggestion. > > CP 7:533n cites “the foundation narrative of Leicester Abbey,” which appears to me to be secondary to Pernel’s own charter naming her father as William. > > Keats-Rohan, DP 263, holds with Crouch, and further cites Rounds, Calendar of Documents in France 653. > > Young, Blackmans of Knight’s Creek (1980) 106, cites a pedigree chart at CP 7:520 and calls her the heir of Grand-Mesnil in Calvados, but does not pursue her ancestry. > > I’m not so sure she would have been heiress to those lands: Ivo, son of Hugh, the Companion and Domesday holder, lost his English fief to Robert, 1st earl of Leicester (DP 233). Though they were Pernel’s ancestral homeland, it seems title to them came through her husband who had inherited them. They were subsequently was awarded to her son-in-law, Saher de Quincy and not Pernel (RA 3:559) likely by right of his wife, Margaret, by virtue of her descent from her father Robert, not her mother, Pernel. > > Thoughts, anyone? > > Thanks > > Greg Cooke So, unless Douglas weighs in with his rationale for changing the identity of Pernel's father, Crouch's evidence should prevail and her father is William and not Hugh. Thanks Greg

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 12:16:00 PM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote: > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 8:29:08 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > Richardson, in MCS (2005) 683 has her as the daughter of William, > > appearing to cite Crouch Beaumont Twins (1986) 91 and Keats-Rohan > > DP (1999) 263. In RA (2013) 3:559 he has her as the daughter of > > Hugh, appearing to cite Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum. > > So, unless Douglas weighs in with his rationale for changing the > identity of Pernel's father, Crouch's evidence should prevail and > her father is William and not Hugh. I wouldn't give this difference too much weight. It probably represents nothing more than a failure to keep one of his titles up to date with information already in the other. Dugdale's Monasticon has been around for a long time, and there is no reason to think that Mr. Richardson discovered something new within it that would cause him to reject the clear testimony of a contemporary charter. Does he give a volume and page for Dugdale? Did you look to see what Dugdale says there? taf