GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1025667279
From: "Rosie Bevan" <>
Subject: Re: (no subject); de Stuteville
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:34:39 +1200
Yes, if Osmund was holding land of Robert de Stuteville in 1166, one would
presume he was of age and therefore born before 1145. The FitzBaldric lands
were actually confiscated around 1087 and granted to Robert I de Stuteville
, so I would not expect a connection there. [Source K-R DD p. 723]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert S Baxter" <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 3:30 PM
Subject: RE: (no subject); de Stuteville
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: (no subject); de Stuteville
> Tuesday, 2 July, 2002
> Hello Bob,
> Thanks for the details from Moriarty. Causby (aka Cowesby) sounds
> the primary identifiable connection from fitz Baldric -> de Stuteville ->
> Foliot .
> Given the chronology, it would appear that the heiress of fitz
> who brought these manors to the de Stuteville family must have been either
> (A) a grandmother of Osmund de Stuteville, or (B) a granddaughter, or
> granddaughter, of the Domesday tenant. I would currently place Osmund de
> Stuteville's birthdate in a range of say 1155-1160, which would place his
> mother's probable birth somewhere in a wide range of say 1130 - 1145.
> would be somewhat late for a daughter of a tenant at Domesday Book (this
> would typically indicate someone who either was, or soon would be, a
> in 1086).
> Perhaps the Hugh fitz Baldric in Moriarty's work would be a son, or
> grandson of the Hugh of 1086 ----- ?
> Thanks, good luck, and good hunting.
> John *
> * John P. Ravilious
> I agree with Rosie, Osmund was born earlier thant 1155/60.