GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1041719527


From:
Subject: Re: Re-dating William Longespee's Birth
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 17:32:07 EST


I made a number of posts yesterday. They all appeared on the AOL server, but
not on Google or other servers or GEN-MED, so I'll try again. I even sent a
message direct to GEN-MED, but it did not go through.

The conclusion is that Countess Ida probably married the Earl of Norfolk
about 1180 and that William Longespee was born earlier, 1170-5. No one
argues that he was born earlier than 1170. The question then remains, was he
born in 1170 or a handful of years later?

[I wrote:]

MARRIAGE OF HUGH BIGOD TO MAUD MARSHAL

> The younger Hugh Bigod was married to Maud Marshal BY Lent 1207; she was
> eldest surviving daughter of William Marshal.  His son and heir, William,
> was born ca. 1190.  Chris pointed out that CP says her parents married
> about August 1189, so Maud was born abt. 1192 or 1193-4?  She was
> certainly born by 1195 if 12 in 1207.  In fact, if she were born only in
> 1195, it would add credence to why Hugh Bigod did not marry until 1207 and
> why she did not produce a male heir until some years later. He married as
> soon as she was of an age to marry.
>
> William Marshal, her father, took great pains to negotiate the marriages of
> his daughters, and all had their marriages arranged before his death except
> one. 
>
> Again, one questions what the definition of marriage was in this case.  I'm
> assuming it meant a completed married (he at least 14, she 12).  It might
> have been arranged years before, but not completed until she attained age
> 12 (though she may still not have been able to bear children safely for
> some years more).
>  
> Though the date of marriage may limit her age, I don't see that it has to
> limit his, more than Hugh having to wait until she was age 12 to complete
> the union.  This was before the reforms in 1215 made by the Council of the
> Lateran IV. 



 BIRTH YEAR OF RANULF FITZ ROBERT, HUSBAND OF MARY BIGOD

> Rannulfus f. Roberti was still in custody and infra etatem Mich. 1202 (PRS
> 1937, 64) , but an adult in 1205-6, when he gave 200 marks for 1/3 of
> William de Stuteville's land in Bramham and Leyburn.  He had also completed
> his payment in the accounts for Knaresborough by Michaelmas 1207 (EYC
> 7:11-12).  
>
> That would put his birth 1181-4/5.  His eldest brother, Waleran, however,
> was aged 15 in 1185, born ca. 1170 (Rot. Dom. 49). 
>
> There is also an account of this family in Gen. NS 3:32, which gives
> Ranulph as third son, younger brother of Walran and Radulph/Ralph, and
> Dugdale's Mon. Angl. 6:920, 381.  Ranulph was heir to his brother Ralph at
> Saxthorpe (Rot. Obl. et Fin. 337). 
>
> Ranulf f. Robert is stated to have married Maud Bigod by 1198-99 (in the
> Eyre which began in the later part of 1198), Book of Fees, 1324. 
>
> In the account of the Middleham fee, it states that Ranulf son of Robert
> succeeded his brother Ralph by 1206.  He had Menythorpe with Mary, daughter
> of Roger Bigod, in frankmarriage.  For his account, see EYC 5:ii:303.  The
> account of Middleham in VCH NRiding Yorks. is not that helpful. 
>
> But this does seem to narrow the birth of Ranulph fitz Robert to 1181-4/5. 
>
>
> Ranulph fitz Robert's father had died in 1184 or 1185.  Rot. Dom [1185].,
> 49 reads, "Filius Roberti filii Radulfi, qui obiit ad festum Sancte Crucis,
> est in custodia Domini Regis, et est nepos Rannulfi de Glanuill', et eadhuc
> cum eo; et est .xv. annorum."



MARY AND HUGH BIGOD AND THEIR BIRTHDATES

> Mary Bigod was the first daughter of Countess Ida named in the Liber Vitae. 
> She married Ranulph (NOT Ralph, which was his brother's name) fitz Robert
> fitz Ralph by 1198-9.  He was born between 1181 and 1184/5, but I'd think
> 1181-2 would be the closer date, given that his father was dead 1184-5 and
> his eldest brother Waleran was b. 1170.  As Mary Bigod would seem to be at
> least 12 in 1198-9 ("duxit"), she'd be born before 1186-7. 
>
> I don't think it unreasonable, given that this is a political match between
> Yorkshire and Norfolk, to say she was probably OLDER THAN TWELVE in 1198-9,
> about her husband's age, her husband still being in wardship when their
> union was arranged, and thus born 1181-4. 
>
> Hugh Bigod gave homage for the manor of Staverton in 1199.  I don't think
> it unlikely to say he married his wife Maud Marshal as soon as she was of
> the proper age (twelve, or born by 1195), her eldest brother being b.
> 1190.  If Hugh Bigod was, say, 18 when he rendered homage in 1199, that
> would give a birth year of 1181.  That matches well with the probable
> birthdate of his eldest sister Maud Bigod. 



MARRIAGE OF COUNTESS IDA AND BIRTH OF BIGOD CHILDREN

> A marriage between Ida and the Earl of Norfolk BY 1180 seems very
> reasonable.
>
> She had born a bastard to King Henry some years before, not before 1170,
> but William Longespee was accounted for in the Pipe Rolls in 1191.  .  
>
> One might proffer that she was likely young when Henry had his way with
> her, given the births of her Bigod children about 1180-1195 or so.  
>
> It is doubtful that the Earl would have married her right after the birth
> of William Longespee, but a few years later.  If Ida were 15 in 1170, I
> don't think it unreasonable that she would have been 25 in 1180. 
>
> It is, after all, possible that Hugh Bigod was born 1178-9, age 21 in 1199,
> unless we determine he was still in the wardship of his father for two
> years or so after the 1199 grant.  It is EASILY possible that the second
> child of Countess Ida was a boy, and that Maud was the third child. 
>
> Countess Ida had eight children, Hugh, William, Roger, John, Ralph, Mary,
> Margaret and Ida. 
>
> If we give two years between births, that is a range of 16 years (say
> 1179-1195). 
>
> If she did not nurse the children, but gave birth every 18 months (assuming
> no multiple births), we have 12 years (say 1183-1195).  If it was 15 months
> it would be an even tighter range. 
>
> One would either presume that Ida came to the end of her childbearing years
> (say, age 45) at the end of the eight children, or died in childbirth.  If
> she was 45 in 1195, she would be 20 in 1170.  That seems to be a bit older
> than we would expect. 
>
> If we guessed that Ida was about age 16 in 1170, or born 1154, she would be
> 45 in 1199, when Hugh Bigod gave homage for Staverton. 
>
> We actually have Ida in quite a number of memorial grants by her husband,
> but cannot date them with a certainty yet which would give us a date of
> death or end range. 
>
> Even if Ida died in childbirth, on the eighth child, and we subtract 12, if
> we assumed she died about 1195, that would mean she started having Bigod
> children in 1183.  I think that would be the late date, given the probable
> years of birth of Hugh, and Mary not being born later than 1186/7 ("duxit"
> in 1198-9). 
>
> I don't think a marriage date to the Earl of Norfolk about 1180 or even
> 1178 is unreasonable.
>
> I do think a birth date for William Longespee of 1180-5 defies these
> considerations.  If he were born in 1185, and we gave five years before Ida
> married the Earl of Norfolk, that would have Ida marrying in 1190, her
> eldest son Hugh paying homage in 1199 at age eight or six, and her daughter
> Mary married at age seven or five. 
>
> Paul
>
>

This thread: