GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1026047329


From: "Chris Phillips" <>
Subject: FitzAlan loose ends
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:08:49 +0100


I've been trying to tie up some loose ends concerning the FitzAlans.
Conclusions about particular points are listed below:

(1) We had some discussion earlier about Keats-Rohan's statement [Domesday
People p.679] that Elias de Say (Isabel's father) was the brother of Henry
de Say, against Sanders's more cautious statement that there was no evidence
of the relationship. Checking Keats-Rohan's source [Rees, Shrewsbury
Cartulary (1975), no 350b], there is indeed an undated charter (between June
1131 and April 1148) recording the surrender of Brompton by Elyas de Say to
the monks of Shrewsbury, to hold as Henry his brother had granted it to them
previously.

(2) The evidence that Isabel's father was Elias de Say (apart from the fact
that she was clearly his successor in the honor of Clun) is a narrative in
the cartulary of Lilleshall [printed in Dugdale, Monasticon, vi 262, cited
by Sanders] that describes Isabel de Say, evidently Elias's successor at
Clun, as his daughter. Eyton [ix 358] gives a translation of the passage,
which he dates to apparently the 12th century, but after 1165, and which he
says is unusually accurate for a monastic narrative, judging by a comparison
with the Domesday Book.

(3) On the marriage of William II FitzAlan to a daughter of Hugh de Lacy,
stated by Eyton, but omitted by Sanders and Keats-Rohan, a little more
delving in Eyton brings up the sources [v 86, x 126], though they aren't
cited in his main account of the FitzAlans in vol.vii. This comes from the
Hundred Rolls (of 39 Henry III), where there is a reference to John FitzAlan
holding in Moneford [Montford] a hide and a half in free marriage, of the
fee of Matilda de Lacy [ii 76a], and two references to a knight's fee which
was given to William FitzAlan with the sister of Walter de Lacy [ii 69b,
80b]. This does appear to substantiate the marriage - Walter (d. 1241) was
the eldest son of Hugh de Lacy, Lord of Meath, and Matilda was Walter's
granddaughter and coheir.

(4) On the date of the death of William II FitzAlan, Eyton's source for the
1210 date, the Annals of Dunstable Priory, is now in print [Annales
Monastici vol.3 (1866); Rolls Series no 36]. "Willelmus filius Alani" occurs
in a list of those who died A.D. 1210.

As Rosie Bevan pointed out, a William FitzAlan does occur in the feudal
returns of 1212, printed in the Book of Fees. However, I don't think these
records conflict with a date of 1210, as three of the entries (for Salop
(p.144), Stafford (p.141) and Norfolk and Suffolk (p.132)) refer to William
FitzAlan as having held (tenuit) lands which are now in the king's
hand/custody (or in Norfolk and Suffolk, John Strange has the custody by the
king). I think this is consistent with William having died in 1210 and his
heir being a minor. (A fourth reference, for Gloucestershire, dated
1211-1213, refers simply to "the fee of William FitzAlan, in Acton one
knight".)

(5) Points 2-4 are all in Eyton, and provide a striking example of later
workers ignoring correct information from older writers, or even modifying
it so that it is incorrect. Also in Eyton is the plea I came across a couple
of weeks ago, which seems to provide the most concise and unambigous
evidence against Sanders's scheme. (And we have to bear in mind how little
of this material was in print when Eyton wrote!)

The one small addition to Eyton's account that's come out of our discussion
here is that Mary, the daughter of Thomas de Erdington, who married the last
William FitzAlan shortly before his death in 1215, remarried by 1220 to one
William de Duston. This seems to be the same William de Duston who came of
age between 1219 and 1223 and was dead by 1231, leaving (if I've understood
correctly) a daughter and heir Roisia, who married Sir John D'Oyley [Eyton
viii 297-208, citing Erdeswick for Duston's issue].

It seems likely that this Roese or Roisia was the daughter of Mary de
Erdington, as Thomas de Erdington's widow was also called Roese (who, by the
same token, was presumably Mary's mother). Rosie Bevan kindly provided
evidence off-list, that Erdington's widow Roese is called in 1220 the widow
of Adam de Cokfield [in fact, looking at her message, I think she also
spotted the connection with Duston's daughter Roese, though I failed to
understand it at the time!].

Chris Phillips




This thread: