GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-01 > 1042094212


From: (Brent W Ruesch)
Subject: Re: Re-dating William Longespee's Birth
Date: 8 Jan 2003 22:36:52 -0800
References: <5cf47a19.0301030811.2500e4a0@posting.google.com> <5cf47a19.0301031936.6548003d@posting.google.com>


(Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<>...
> 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:
>
> copyright
>
>
> (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<>...
> > Dear Newsgroup ~
> >
> > It seems appropriate to review grants to royal princes to determine if
> > kings ever granted lands to their sons before they reached majority.
> > In a recent post, I showed that King Henry II attempted to grant lands
> > to his son, John, when he was 6, made him King of Ireland when he was
> > 10, and sent him to rule Ireland when he was 17. All this happened
> > when John was a minor.
> >
> > Yesterday I was re-examined the records of the life of Edmund of
> > Woodstock, Earl of Kent. Edmund of Woodstock was a younger son of
> > King Edward I, by his 2nd wife, Margaret of France. He was born in
> > 1301. There is useful material about Edmund's minority in both
> > Complete Peerage 7 (1929): 142-148 (sub Kent) and Dictionary of
> > National Biography 6 (1888/9): 410-412.
> >
> > According to these sources, Edmund received several grants when he was
> > a minor as follows:
> >
> > 1. In 1306 his father King Edward I granted him a revenue of 7,000
> > marks a year. Edmund was then age 5.
> >
> > 2. In 1310 his brother King Edward II granted him and his brother,
> > Thomas of Brotherton, the castles and lands late of Roger Bigod, Earl
> > of Norfolk.
> >
> > 3. In 1315 the king granted him the manors of Ashford, co. Derby,
> > Kenton, Shebbear, Chetscombe, Lifton with the hundred, co. Devon, etc.
> >
> > 4. In 1318 he was granted the castle and town of Gloucester.
> >
> > 5. In 1319 he was granted the castle and honour of Knaresborough.
> >
> > 6. In 1320 he was granted lands of the value of 2,000 marks a year.
> > Next year the king still further increased Edmund's resources.
> >
> > I have seen some of these grants and I don't recall that any of them
> > state or imply that Edmund of Woodstock was a minor at the time of the
> > grants. Although Complete Peerage doesn't mention it, the DNB reveals
> > that King Edward II granted the custody of his brother, Edmund, to
> > Edward de Balliol. No date is given for this grant.
> >
> > So Edmund of Woodstock had several land grants when he was still under
> > 21 and he also had a guardian. This is in direct contradiction to the
> > comments made about such grants in Paul Reed's recent article in The
> > American Genealogist. He maintained that the King would have "no
> > motivation" to grant lands to his brother, William Longespee, if he
> > was under 21. The facts speak otherwise.
> >
> > As such, I conclude the pattern is for the king to grant lands to his
> > minor son or brother AS HE SAW FIT, without regard that the son or
> > brother was a minor. A guardian could be appointed if one was needed.
> > If so, then the 1191 grant to William Longespee by his brother, King
> > Richard II, can not be used to date William Longespee's birth.
> >
> > As far as when William Longespee might have been born, I find that
> > King Henry II and his wife, Eleanor, separated in 1168, and did not
> > cohabit after that date. Evidently there was some hope of
> > reconciliation, at least on the part of the ecclesiastical
> > authorities. About October 1175, however, King Henry II negotiated
> > with the papal legate about a divorce from his "hated queen." As
> > such, I think 1175 would be more likely the earliest date for King
> > Henry II to have fathered William Longespee, as he clearly was taking
> > steps at that date to terminate his marriage to Queen Eleanor. For
> > information on this period of King Henry and Queen Eleanor's marriage,
> > see Eleanor's biography in the Dictionary of National Biography, 6
> > (1888-9): 593-596.
> >
> > A birthdate of 1175/80 for William Longespee would certainly fit the
> > other known evidence we have for William Longespee. As best I can
> > determine, he first shows up acting as an adult in 1196, when he was
> > with his brother, King Richard, in Normandy. For people of this rank,
> > this usually occurred when they were about 16-18 years old. This
> > compares with King Henry II sending his son, John, to rule Ireland in
> > 1185, when John was 17. If we assume William Longespee was 16-18 in
> > 1196, that would place his birth as 1178/80.
> >
> > In a related vein, we now know that William Longespee's eldest
> > legitimate sister, Mary Bigod, was married before 1198/9 to Robert
> > Fitz Ranulph and that Mary's husband was still a minor in 1198/9. As
> > such, we know that Robert Fitz Ranulph was born no early than 1177/8
> > and probably a bit later. If we roughly guesstimated that Mary Bigod
> > was age 16 in 1198/9, that would place her birth as 1182/3. That
> > would fit well with her older brother, William Longespee's approximate
> > birth of 1178/80. This chronology fits the facts.
> >
> > I wish to thank Chris Phillips, John Ravilious, and Michael Welch for
> > being a sounding board for the above post. The conclusions drawn are
> > my own.
> >
> > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
> >
> > E-mail:
> >
> > Copyright

It is so nice to see your research, Doug. I appreciate all the
efforts you and Ray Phair and Paul Reed have done to draw attention to
this particular family. It is when it got emotional that I got sucked
in to all of this. Of course , I have another take on all of
this.........My sources include European Stammtafeln, The Warren
family History, Burkes Extinct Peerages, the previous research of the
above listed writers and numerous other articles with small
contributions.

There appears to be no question that the wife of Roger Bigod is Ida.
The question is - whose daughter is She? Was she a Toeni or a Warren
( or what ?)
The Toeni family of Roger III called the Conches and born abt 1104
died after 29 sep 1158. He married bef 9 Aug 1138 Gertrude (Ida) of
Hennegau and had four sons listed: Raoul V who married Margaret
Beaumont; Roger;Balduin d 1170; and Geoffrey. No daughters are
listed but it could be argued that they had an Ida. In other words a
girl would have to be "created" to fill this option since she is not
listed. But still , it is possible and probable there was also an
Ida.

The only family whose records insist that a daughter married Roger
Bigod is the Warren family , specifically Hameline Plantagenet and his
wife Isabel Warren. The English records vary somewhat from the German
records of this same family.. The English state that a daughter,
Isabel married Roger Bigod. The German (European Stammtafeln) state
that Isabel d. 30 Nov 1234, and married (1) Robert de Lacy d.1193 and
(2) Guilbert de L'Aigle Lord of Pevensey d 1231. Notice she did NOT
marry Roger Bigod. Ela (spelled Adela in the English records) married
Robert Newburn and then William FitzWilliam d. bef 1224. Maud (
Mathilda) d. 13 Dec 1228 married (1) Henry Count of Eu d. 1191, and
(2) Henry Stuteville lord of Eckington d. 8 Apr bef 1236.

There are more daughters mentioned in other reserch. One became one
of the mistresses of King John. Mary became the wife of Adam
Salisbury. Because the Warren family have insisted that a connection
was made by one of their daughters and have said so for centuries, it
is most likely the daughter was an Ida and not ISabel as she married
two other men mentioned and died 3 years after her last husband,
hardly enough time to marry Roger Bigod and have his numerous
children.

So is Ida a corruption of Adela? NO . Ida and Gertrude are equivelant
names in German territory. ( see European Stammtafeln....also I speak
German and lived there for a while)

Is the name really Ida Isabel? Not likely as there appears little if
any evidence that women at this time carried more than one name. Each
name was a legitimate first name- Ida and Isabel

Is it possible that the Warren family , large as it was, got confused
as to which daughter married Roger Bigod? I think so. It certainly
was not Isabel who married Roger Bigod but an Ida.... probably an Ida
daughter of Hamelyn and Isabel. No other family has made this claim
.....as they should and would have being of high status and close to
the throne ........Even the mistress was known.

Thanks ......Brent

This thread: