GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-07 > 0962631678


From: malinda jones <>
Subject: Re: AT of Matilda of Mayenne, wife of Hugh II of Burgundy
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:41:18 -0500


This is a fascinating discussion....Robert Fitz Hamon is purportedly the
progenitor of my Creully/Cruel/Criolle/Kyrle/Curle... (etc) line.

Where would be a good source (both reliable and accessible) of further
information about the Creully family....(who is the Goz family) ?

Thank you both for letting the rest of us eaves drop on your learned conversation

malinda


"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:

> Leo van de Pas wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Sharp made a very valuable observation in this quest,
>
> I have not seen this post yet (my ISP seems to be having problems with
> their news server).
>
> > why went the Earldom of Chester in 1120 the way it did?
>
> It was not inherited. Such a practice (inheritance of Earldoms) was
> still ambiguous, and in this case it was regranted to a relative
> (curiously, by most grants this would have been the case as well, since
> the legitimate male line, and in fact, it would seem, the entire
> legitimate issue of the first grantee had become extinct, so it reverts
> to the crown). Henry was a master of manipulating his unruly nobility
> by playing branches of families off of each other through passing
> properties to people other than the "legitimate" heirs when given the
> least opportunity.
>
> > On 25 November 1120 Richard d'Avranches, 2nd Earl of Chester, drowned near
> > Harfleur as one of the passengers on the White Ship. If Turstin de Creully
> > (or de Presles) was his father's brother, surely he had a better claim then
> > the son of an aunt? Richard was about 26 years of age and, we cannot be
> > sure, both his "uncle" Turstin as well as his aunt Margaret d'Avranches
> > could be alive. Why then went the Earldom,
> > bypassing the father's "brother" and sister and went to that sister's son?
>
> Because that's who the King chose to give it to. It appears that
> Turstin II was also stripped of Creully at some point, and given Presles
> as compensation, when Creully was given to Robert Fitz Hamon (whose
> ancestor Hamon Dentalis had Creully taken from him and given to the
> first Turstin). He was certainly not a favorite.
>
> > Perhaps they preferred France but, somehow, I
> > don't believe that.
>
> It was not their preference, but King Henry's that was important.
>
> > The Complete Peerage Volume III page 166, tells us
> > that Ranulph de Meschines "being thus 1st cousin and heir to the last Earl
> > (whom he succeeded as Vicomte d'Avranches) obtained, after the Earl's death
> > in 1120, the grant of the County Palatine of Chester, becoming thereby Earl
> > of Chester." Reading between the lines, his mother, Margaret, was death and
> > the children of "uncle" Turstin, who himself could still be alive, are
> > ignored?
>
> I think this is a case where CP is inappropriately applying the later
> concept of inheritance to explain the fact that Ranulph got the title
> next.
>
> > Also, you tell that Felicie marrying circa 1115 Hugues II Borel, Duke of
> > Normandy, changes her name to Mathilde.
> > But why then, in 1120, is she named Felicie? Interesting.
>
> The theory is that she adopted the name Matilda on marriage, and thus
> was known as such in Burgundy. This need not imply that she abandonned
> her original name in Mayenne.
>
> > A pity for all of us, we can't see what Keats-Rohan has produced to make
> > those two claims, Felicie is Mathilde and Turstin de Creully/Presles is the
> > son of Richard Goz, Vicomte d'Avranches. Where do we go from Here?
>
> The latter is not Keats-Rohan's. She is following Musset. According to
> her summary, his argument is based on 1) a documented tie between the
> Goz clan and manor (if you will) of Creully, and 2) a direct
> correspondence between the names and chronology found in the Goz and
> Creully families. While she does not specifically mention it, since she
> does not doubt the correlation to begin with, that the web of
> relationships constructed by such an equation explains the consanguious
> relationship between the Mortain and Mayenne families (otherwise
> inexplicable) supports this identification.
>
> As to Felicite being Matilda, she provides no explanation, but I suspect
> it was similar to that which I speculated in my earlier post. We know
> Matilda was daughter of Walter, and no material from Mayenne gives
> Walter a daughter of that name, so either one of his daughters escaped
> notice, or an existing daughter used a double name. Felicia is the
> daughter of Walter unaccounted for, and we know that "Matilda" had a
> descendant with what would be the identical double name (if "Matilda"
> did in fact have one).
>
> ta

This thread: