GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

From: "Homer B. James" <>
Subject: Re: De Mortimer
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 07:42:14 -0500

Thanks for the review of my material. I have learned one thing from this,
having also received inputs from others, that I must keep track of my
sources on a much more exacting basis. Right now I cannot reconstruct where
I got each segment of info.

I will compare your input to others and get back at a later date.

At 12:51 PM 12/31/95 EST, you wrote:
>I have finally found the time to go over this posting on the Mortimers with
>a fine tooth comb. I was hoping to confirm the correctness of my own data
>base and possibly add to it. Instead, I am in a state of confusion. There
>are several major differences between what is stated here and what appears
>in Cokayne and in Weis (Weis accepts Cokayne as a trustworthy source). I
>am really hoping someone out there can clear these discrepancies up - or
>are the orgins of this powerful family really clouded in such a thick mist
>? :-)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> >The following material is excerpted from Homer Beers James Genealogy, Vol 2.
>>
>>MORTIMER (MORTEMER)
>>The family of Mortemer derives its name from Mortemer (Mortuo-Mari) in
>>>Pays-de-Caux at the source of the Eaulne River. The castle of St.
>>>Victor-en-Caux was the chief barony of the family, which is said to have
>>sprung >from a marriage of Walter de St. Martin and a niece of the Duchess
>>Gonnor.
>
> (snip)
>>
>> For this reason Roger was banished by Duke William and his estates
>>>confiscated. He was later pardoned and his possessions returned with the
>>>exception of the castle of Mortemer, which the Duke had given to Roger's
>>>brother, William de Warren I. He contributed sixty vassals to the fleet
>>of Duke >William and it is generally conceded that he was too old to have
>>been present >at Senlac, although he made a donation to the abbey of St.
>>Ouen in 1074 and >died prior to the compilation of the General Survey.
>>Wace mentions "Hue de >Mortemer" as having taken part in the battle.
>> Many commentators believe this to be an error, contending that Wace
>>should >have chronicled Roger or his son, Ralph, or both, because the only
>>recorded >Hugh was the son of Ralph and therefore too young to have
>>participated in this >event. There is no proof, however, that if not of
>>this branch of the family, a >Hugh could not have sprung from another.
>>Eyton says, "There is evidence that >Roger had two sons in addition to
>>Ralph, namely, Hugh and William." >Nevertheless, Ralph was certainly
>>Roger's heir,
>
> (snip)>
>
>>1. Roger de Mortimer, the first of this name upon record is deemed by
>>some to >have been the son of William de Warren, and by others, of Walter
>>de St. Martin, >brother of that William.
>
> (snip)
>
>> It is further observable of this Roger, that he was by consanguity
>>allied to >the Norman duke Afterwards King, by the name of William the
>>Conqueror), his >mother being niece to Gunnora, wife of Richard, Duke of
>>Normandy, great >grandmother to the Conqueror." The presumed son of this
>>Roger, was Ralph de >Mortimer.
>
> An "Appendix A" entitled "A note on the relationships between the
>families of Mortimer and Warenne" appears in Cokayne (sorry I didn't note
>which volume). The last sentence expresses the conclusion : "To sum up :
>that some relationship existed between the families Warrene and Mortemer
>seems probable, if not certain, but its exact nature has not at present
>been discovered". Has it since been discovered ? The appendix seems to
>prove that the likelihood of William Warrene and Roger being brothers is
>very remote indeed. The appendix also proves that the Hugh and William
>sometimes given as sons of Roger in addition to his heir, Ralph, were
>almost certainly the sons of another Roger who has been confused with
>Mortemer.
>
>>2. Ralph de Mortimer, accompanying the Duke of Normandy in his expedition
>>>against England, was one of his principal commanders at the decisive
>>battle of >Hastings;
>
> (Snip)
>
>> He married Millicent ________, by whom he had issue:
>>
>> 1. Hugh de Mortimer, his successor. See below.
>> 2. William de Mortimer, Lord of Chelmersh, and afterwards of
Netherby.
>> 3. Robert de Mortimer, ancestor of the Mortimers, of Richard's
>>Castle, >(presumed son of or brother of the 1st Hugh de Mortimer, shown as
>>a brother >above), married Margery Ferrers, only daughter and heiress of
>>Hugh de Ferrers, >and grand-daughter of Hugh de Say, Lord of Richard's
>>Castle, co. Hereford, by >which alliance he acquired that, and other
>>considerable manors, and in the >12th year of Henry II. he certified his
>>knight's fees of his honor to be in >number twenty-three. In the 17th
>>year of King John he had a grant from the >king of all the lands in
>>Berwick, in Sussex, which had belonged to Mabel de >Say, mother of
>>Margery, his wife, and then in the possession of Robert Marmion, >the
>>younger. He died about the year 1219, and was succeeded by his son, Hugh.
>> 4. Hawise Mortimer, married Stephen, Earl of Albemarle.
>
>Cokayne mentions only one child for Ralph - his heir, Hugh, who d. in
>1148/50. The Hugh listed as #1 above, as stated below, is said to have
>died in 1189. Cokayne gives two childern for Hugh (d. 1148/50) - Roger and
>Hugh (d.1180/1), who m. Maud dau of William Meschin, the brother of Ranulf
>I, Earl of Chester. Cokayne makes this younger Hugh the heir of the elder.
>The younger Hugh and his wife, Maud, were parents of two children - a
>third geneartion Hugh and Roger. Roger d. bef 19 Aug 1214 and m. Isabel,
>dau of Walkelin de Ferriers.
>
>this is where the Homer Beers James Genealogy (HBJG) and Cokayne come into
>the most serious conflict. As outlined below, HBJG has the elder Hugh's
>son, Roger (d.1215) as the heir and progenitor of the later genearations
>leading to the Earls of March. Cokayne, however, leaves this Roger
>completely out of the line of succession and has Roger's brother, the
>middle Hugh (d.1180/1), and then Hugh's son, Roger (d. bef 19 Aug 1214), as
>the progenitors. There appears to be the possibility of two Rogers - one
>the uncle of the other - who are being confused. There is also a
>disrepancy regarding the identity of Roger's wife - the Ferriers girl.
>HBJG identifies her as Millicent, dau of Robert Ferrers, Earl of Derby
>whereas Cokayne identifies her as Isabel, dau of Walkelin de Ferriers. I
>can't help but suspect that HBJG is confusing his Millicent with Grandpa
>(or Great Grandpa) Ralph's wife of the same name - after all the name is
>not that common.
>
>>He was succeeded by his son, Hugh.
>
>>3. Hugh de Mortimer, being a person of a proud and turbulent spirit,
>>opposed >strenuously the accession of King Henry II.
>
> (snip)
>
>> He married __________ and had issue as follows:
>>
>> 1. Roger de Mortimer, his successor. See below.
>> 2. Hugh de Mortimer, married Felicia de Sancto Sydonio, and had,
>>by > gift of his father, the manors of Sudbury and Chelmers.
>> 3. Ralph de Mortimer.
>> 4. William de Mortimer.
>>
>>He died in 1189, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Roger.
>
>>4. Roger de Mortimer, Lord of Wigmore, like his predecessors, was in
>>constant >strife with the Welsh.
>
> (Snip)
>
> This Roger married (1) Millicent Ferrers, daughter of Robert Ferrers,
>Earl of Derby, and had issue as follows:
>>
>> 1. Hugh de Mortimer, the eldest son was his successor.
>
> (snip)
>
>> He married Annora Braose, daughter of William de Braose (which one?),
>>and had >100 shillings in land with her. But having been severely wounded
>>in a >tournament, died in November, 1227, leaving no issue, when he was
>>succeeded by >his half brother, Ralph.
>> 2. Daughter #1, _________ Mortimer, married Stephen le Gross.
>> 3. Joane Mortimer, married Walceline de Beauchamp. See
>>continuation >of this lineage in the Beauchamp Line.
>>
>>He married (2) Isabel Ferrers, sister and heir of Hugh de Ferrers, of
>>Oakham, >in Rutlandshire, and of Lechelade and Lagebiry in
>>Gloucestershire. All which >lands he inherited upon the death of the said
>>Hugh Ferrers. Roger and Isabel >had three sons as follows:
>>
>> 1. Ralph de Mortimer. See below.
>> 2. Robert de Mortimer.
>> 3. Philip de Mortimer.
>
>As alluded to in my previous coment, Cokayne gives only one wife for Roger
>- Isabel, dau of Walkelin de Feriers. Cokayne lists their children as
>Ralph, Hugh, Robert, and Philip. This makes Hugh and Ralph full (not half)
>brothers as claimed by HBJG immediately below.
>
>>He died in 1215, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Hugh.
>
>>5. Ralph de Mortimer , half-brother to Hugh, succeeded him at his death.
>
> (snip)
>
>>. . . so that Prince Llewellyn, seeing that he could not successfully
>>cope >with him, gave him his daughter Gladys (Gladuse) Dhu, daughter of
>>Llewellyn the >Great, and widow of Reginald de Braose, in marriage, and by
>>this lady he had >issue as follows:
>>
>> 1. Roger de Mortimer, his successor. See below.
>> 2. Peter John de Mortimer, a grey friar at Shrewsbury.
>> 3. Hugh de Mortimer, of Chelmersh.
>> 4. Isolda Mortimer, married (1) Walter Balem, and (2) Hugh
>>Audley, > Lord Audley.
>
>I can't find my source for this (not Cokayne), but I have Isolda as the dau
>of Edmund of the next generation. My info says she died in 1336. If she
>were, as I have her, the sister of Roger, Earl of March (d.1330), this
>would seem logical. The only thing that makes me a little skeptical of my
>own info is that the death date I have for Isolda's husband, Hugh, Lord
>Audley is 1272 - which would make Isolda a widow for 64 years !
>
>>He died in 1246, and was succeeded by his eldest son, Roger.
>
>>6. Roger de Mortimer , in the 31st year of King Henry III.,
>
>>From here on HBJG seems to agree with Cokayne.
>
>
>Today is the first day of the rest of your life ! () Jim
>
>

This thread:

• Re: De Mortimer by "Homer B. James" <>