GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1041808750
Subject: Re: Re-dating William Longespee's Birth
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:19:10 EST
I will answer simply that
(a) The order Richard gave from Messina in February 1191 stated simply that
his Justiciars (of whom Geoffrey Fitz Piers happened to be one) should turn
over the manor of Kirton to his brother William. Then William accounts for
the HIMSELF in the Pipe Roll Michaelmas 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, holding it by
order of the King.
John C. B. Sharp had checked the original writ of order long ago, and it was
cited in my article. This is not a charter granting land, which could be
interpreted to be to a minor, but an order to turn over possession of a manor
to a specific person (William). One would normally interpret such acts as
involving someone OF AGE.
(b) The entry in the Pipe Roll for 1194 which pertains to Geoffrey Fitz Piers
was CANCELED It would have been helpful when you presented your version of
the abstract if you would have pointed it out, so the information would not
have been misinterpreted, and lead us on a wild goose chace of supposition
As it is, the unconcealed portion of the entry in the Pipe Roll in 1194
pertains ONLY to William Longepsee, and states he held Kirton BY THE KING.
There is NO STATEMENT CONCERNING A GUARDIAN.
(c) How did the King come to hold Kirton? It had been held for decades as
land of the Count of Flanders. This is born out by entries in the Red Book
of the Exchequer, earlier Pipe Rolls, etc. William de Mandeville, Earl of
Essex, held is in farm for the King at his death in 1189. It was in the
hands of the crown in 1190 according to the Pipe Rolls.
One receives inheritance by payment of a fine. Geoffrey de Say did not make
payment after offering an exorbitant amount, and it took Geoffrey Fitz Piers
UNTIL 1194 to complete that payment. That meant until payment was made, the
King had rights to income that would be coming from the lands. In this case
we are concerned with Kirton. It was sometime during 1194 that Geoffrey made
the last installment, but the Pipe Roll entry for Michaelmas (29 September)
states that William Longepsee held the manor of Kirton and its income for
half the year.
The entry DOES NOT SAY that Geoffrey Fitz Piers held it in William's behalf,
and as it was held by William de Mandeville, and Geoffrey was his heir,
completing payment for the fine of his inheritance and chief heir in 1194, we
see plainly what happened.
(d) We do not know for what reasons Kirton was put into the hands of John,
Richard's brother. Geoffrey Fitz Piers was made Chief Justiciar that year.
There are any number of reasons for the transfer of land. It was land that
had been part of the holdings of the Count of Flanders. There might have
been a transfer. There is NO STATEMENTS THAT WARDSHIP was involved in any
way. That is entirely your novel interpretation, not the interpretation of
J. Horace Round, who studied Geoffrey in detail, or others. The documents
STATE simply that William Longepsee held Kirton by the King in 1191, 1192,
1193 and 1194 (holding it for half the year in 1194), the entry pertaining to
Geoffrey Fitz Piers in 1194 is canceled, and then Geoffrey Fitz Piers answers
for it himself in 1195, etc. You will see that Geoffrey also answered for
Beanton/Banton and Dunham ("de firma de Kytketon ... de firma de Beanton ...
de firma de Dunham"). Are you going to argue that those were also lands he
held as guardian of William Longepsee or as heir of William de Mandeville?
(d) Doug wrote [ writes}:
> By the way, I'm curious to know why did you miss William Longespee's
> wardship? Or, did you suppress this evidence in your article because
> it didn't fit your conclusions that William Longespee was the grandson
> of a couple married prior to 1135? Something isn't totaling up. I
> think you need to explain yourself.
I still for the life of me cannot see that there was any wardship, as you
persistently claim, or that Geoffrey Fitz Piers receiving Kirton in 1194
after he finished the last payment of the fine for receiving his inheritance
in that year pertains to William. If there was any SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE,
it would be that you made no indication that the part of the 1194 Pipe Roll
entry pertaining to Geoffrey Fitz Piers was canceled, so it would appear that
there was some connection between him and William Longespee.
Something isn't totaling up, indeed. You are presenting ONLY what you think
will challenge my position. And then you state <<William Longespee was the
grandson of a couple married prior to 1135?>> So what? William was son of
Countess Ida by Henry II, no one disputes that. The age of the wife at birth
had very little to do with the age of the husband (Pablo Picasso proved
that). Countess Ida was presumably quite young when William was born (I say
1170, given the evidence, others say 1170-5, you say 1175-80!). What does
that have to do with when his grandparents were married.
Hugh Bigod, son of Countess Ida, married in 1207, but his wife was not BORN
UNTIL 1192-5. If 1195, she would be 12 in 1207, and probably would not have
borne children for several more years. And what do we have, a boy (Roger)
born about 1212, when she would have been about seventeen, or eighteen, or
nineteen, but there is nothing to prevent a daughter from being born, say,
1210. That is natural.
We have this same Hugh Bigod paying homage for the manor of Staverton in 1199
(which you still have YET to address), and his brother William witnessing a
charter of William Longepsee with him in 1197-8. Their sister Mary Bigod was
married by 1198 to a man born 1181-84/5.
My mother married at age 29 and had eight children (I was the last). My
eldest sister married at age 30 and had seven (though there were also several
miscarriages), it being her second marriage (she had married first before age
20). That would be a similar scenario to William Longespee, IF we assume Ida
did not marry the Earl of Norfolk UNTIL 1180. If her son Hugh Bigod were age
21 in 1199, when he paid homage, that would mean a birth of about 1178, and a
marriage of Ida to his father about 1177. That is all quite reasonable.
Accusing me of purposely suppressing information is not collegial, friendly,
or part of the new mantra you have declared we should now be living by, Doug.
|Re: Re-dating William Longespee's Birth by|