GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1041714739
From: (Douglas Richardson)
Subject: Re: Re-dating William Longespee's Birth
Date: 4 Jan 2003 13:12:19 -0800
Dear Adrian ~
Thank you for your good post. You've asked an excellent question.
Geoffrey Fitz Peter's father, Peter de Ludgershall (also known as
Peter the Forester), died long before this time period. To my
knowledge, the only manor Peter held was Cherhill, co. Wiltshire.
After Peter's death, Cherhill was held first by his son, Robert Fitz
Peter, and then by his 2nd son, Geoffrey Fitz Peter. Geoffrey Fitz
Peter eventually became Earl of Essex.
The lands at Kirton, co. Lincoln for which Geoffrey Fitz Peter
answered in 1194 appear to be those of William Longespee, presumably
his ward. William Longespee was granted the property in 1191. As
I've indicated in another post, Kirton appears to have been resigned
by William Longespee to the crown on William's marriage in 1197 to his
wife, Ela of Salisbury. It was thereafter held by John, Count of
Mortain (later King John), the Count of Boulogne, and Richard, Earl of
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
wrote in message news:<>...
> I'm sure you have verified this, but there are two Kirtons in Lincolnshire;
> Kirton in Holland and Kirton in Lindsey (both in Domesday Book). The second
> is the one held by Wm Longespee.
> I would have thought that Geoffrey was "answering" for his father Peter.
> Douglas Richardson,
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
> > Since posting the message below earlier today, I've determined
> > Geoffrey Fitz Peter (afterwards Earl of Essex) answered for William
> > Longespee's lands at Kirton, co. Lincoln in 1194. The Pipe Roll entry
> > in question reads as follows:
> > Sub Lincolnshire
> > "Et in Kyrketon' c. li. bl. (De quibus Galfridus f. Petri debet
> > respondere) (quas Willelmus frater R. habuit per R.) de dimidio anno."
> > [Reference: D.M. Stenton, Great Roll of the Pipe for the Sixth Year of
> > the Reign of King Richard the First, Michaelmas 1194 (Publications of
> > the Pipe Roll Soc., n.s., vol. 5) (1928), pg. 102].
> > While this record can be interpreted various ways, I think the best
> > interpretation would be that Geoffrey Fitz Peter was answering
> > ("respondere") for William Longespee's lands, because he was William's
> > guardian. If so, then this means that William Longespee was under 21
> > in 1194. This is hardly any surprise.
> > In 1197 William Longespee appears for the first time in connection
> > with Wiltshire, in which year he had married Ela, daughter and heiress
> > of William, Earl of Salisbury. He is called "Willelmo (comiti) frater
> > R." in the Pipe Roll of that year in connection with Amesbury, co.
> > Wilts, which estate was the principal seat of his wife's family
> > [Reference: D.M. Stenton, Great Roll of the Pipe for the Ninth Year of
> > the Reign of King Richard the First Michaelmas 1197 (Publications of
> > the Pipe Roll Soc., n.s., vol. 8) (1931), pg. 208]. There is no
> > indication at this point that he was a minor. However, in this
> > period, a minor male could be granted the lands of his wife. So,
> > holding his wife's lands do not necessarily imply he was yet 21.
> > Given the other evidence we have in hand that William Longespee first
> > surfaces in an adult capacity when he accompanied his brother, King
> > Richard I, to Normandy in 1196, I would judge William to be born about
> > 1178/80. As a general rule, men of this station appear in records at
> > about age 16 to 18 when they were capable of military service. This
> > would make William 17 to 19 at his marriage in 1197, again no
> > surprises there. This fits nicely with his eldest legitimate
> > half-sister, Mary's husband, Ranulph Fitz Robert, being a minor in
> > 1198/9. In that year the Archbishop was answering for Ranulph's land,
> > Ranulph being then in wardship to the Archbishop.
> > So, as we saw in my earlier post with Edmund of Woodstock, William
> > Longespee was granted lands by his brother the king and subsequently
> > appointed a guardian. We have William Longespee in wardship in 1194,
> > and his brother-in-law in wardship in 1198/9. This definitely fits a
> > chronological pattern. There are no surprises here. The discovery of
> > other records will doubtless expand our knowledge of this family.
> > Collegial comments are invited.
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> > E-mail:
|Re: Re-dating William Longespee's Birth by (Douglas Richardson)|