GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-03 > 1016376980


From: (William Addams Reitwiesner)
Subject: Re: A Hugh de Grandmesnil
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:52:31 GMT
References: <018501c1cd37$06c2a740$e70b86d9@oemcomputer>, <acQk8.1926$GH4.74951@eagle.america.net>, <d51b1746.0203162027.5bd9e403@posting.google.com>


(Jay) wrote:

>"D. Spencer Hines" <> wrote in message news:<acQk8.1926$>...
>> With two Companions of the Conqueror [COC] here you get a complimentary
>> egg roll.
>>
>> Robert de Beaumont, later 1st Earl of Leicester, is also a Companion of
>> the Conqueror, according to William of Poitiers and CP [XII(1):Appendix
>> L]
>>
>> Indeed, Robert de Beaumont is the first COC listed ---- a singular
>> honour indeed. He seems to have been only about 17-20 at the Battle of
>> Hastings. How'd you like to experience that day with your ancestor?
>>
>> Just hop into your Time Machine with Guy Pearce and off you go.
>>
>> This first Earl of Leicester is reportedly the Grandfather of Robert de
>> Beaumont, the 3rd Earl of Leicester ---- who married Petronille
>> ["Pernel"] de Grandmesnil, circa 1155.
>>
>
>It would be an interesting time travel experiment until some guy swung
>an axe at you. One question for the group. Was the above Robert de
>Beaumont really the 1st Earl of Leicester or did that honor really
>belong to his son? I have read that he held the title the Count of
>Meula, but became possessed the towns of fiefs of Leicester by charter
>from Ivo de Grandmesnil. Was posession of that charter enough to make
>him the Earl of Leicester de jure, or was he merely styled that in
>retrospect because of his de facto possession of the rights and
>privileges of the Earldom. I don't have the answer so I look to the
>skilled medieval scholars that inhabit this group.

It's a retrospective interpretation of the events. He was never styled
Earl of Leicester during his lifetime, but (based on his grandson's
assertions) it's easier for us to consider him as such.



William Addams Reitwiesner


This thread: