GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1027261015
From: Cristopher Nash <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: FitzAlan loose ends
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 15:21:58 +0100
I'm sorry to have been away when your fine work on this thread came
thru, Chris, and just want to add to others' my thanks for it.
Wanting to digest it all more thoroughly, I'll just attach a couplof
brief thoughts I'd had when, before leaving, I hurriedly summed up
the results of my dig through the Haughmond Cartulary -- summarized
under <Re: Possible Solution to the Fitz Alan Problem> on 26 Jun.
All of which I think support your proposals.
On point (4), I can confirm that I also that day looked at Annales
Monastici vol.3 (1866); Rolls Series no 36, and agree that it
supplies the date you mention.
I'd also looked at Eyton's article 'The Monasteries of Shropshire:
Their Origins and Founders: Haughmond Abbey', _The Archeological
Journal_, XIII (1856), pp. 144-53, and would like to add that on the
seeming problem concerning the apparently late appearance of Downton,
Eyton specifically makes the point (in line with my earlier
speculation to this effect on the subject) that the Monasticon
frequently conceals as apparent gifts what are actually ratifications
by subsequent FitzAlans of earlier donations. E.g. citing a charter
of William II printed in Monasticon, vi, 108, no. II, he points out
that it's one of "several other charters by the same baron, which
have similar delusive appearance" - i.e. it is "really only a charter
of confirmation" [p. 153].
More, the 'Haughmond Abbey' article makes unmistakable that by
William I's "second wife, Isabel de Say, Baroness of Clun, whom he
seems to have married about 1153-4, he left a son, William, an
infant, whose minority seems to have expired about June, 1175," and
that Downton descended via her to the FitzAlans [e.g. p. 151]. A
slight puzzle I've not thought through is that William I gave the
church of Stokes [sic - neighbouring Piperinges in Sussex] "with
consent of his wife, Isabella" (p. 152), though it "had been enjoyed
by Avelina, his mother". I think there's the possibility that there
are 2 Stokes conflated here -- viz. Stoke in Sussex and Stokes(ay) in
Salop (of which the 's' in 'Stokes' is a relic). Per Rees' intro to
the Haughmond Cartulary Hugh de Say evidently holds and grants the
church of the latter late C12/earlyC13 (in 1195, I find per _Ox Eng
Placenames_). Certainly William II FitzAlan confirms his fa's grant
of Stoke (Sussex) ca. 1196 -- per Rees' Appendix C ("Charters from
the Dudmaston MS which are not included in the cartulary"), item ix.
Thanks again for your sharp thinking.
"Chris Phillips" <> wrote --
>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
>(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
>(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!].