GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1061158143


From: (Reedpcgen)
Subject: Re: Edmund, Earl of Lancaster's cousin, John de St. John
Date: 17 Aug 2003 22:09:03 GMT
References: <bhnr54$8dk$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>


There is no getting around the Papal bull. Walther Holtzmann was by far the
greatest expert on them, and created the most extensive collections on a well
organized basis for each country/region. It is from his manuscript notes left
at his death that those invaluable entries for England are culled.

In addition, the name of the Prioress Matilda sets a certain time frame, as she
did not succeed until 1162, but there was a prioress before her, so it could
not be the foundation. The death of Ralph de Toeni in 1162 and minority of his
heir would also provide a motive for her to want to receive Papal authority for
her positionand rights.

From this I would conclude that the foundation had to predate 1162, in any
case.

Margaret de Beaumont was not left a widow until 1162, and her son Roger was not
born until around 1155.

It may be that whoever recorded the charter concerning Roger, son of Margaret,
confused him with the Roger who was actually his grandfather.

The grandfather Roger was born about 1104, and lived until the period 1157-62.
His uncle Roger died v.p. unmarried, and the next previous Roger was buried at
Conches 1038/9, before the invasion and possession of the lands in England.

If the founder was a Roger, it must be Roger who married Ida of Hainault.
Also, given that he had succeeded to the inheritance about 1126, and held it
until about 1157-62, and the nunnery was certainly founded by 1162, he would
seem the prime candidate.

We have seen apparently two instances of the original foundation charter having
all its terms reissued in charters by later heirs, and lacking the real
original foundation charter, those charters by their very nature might mislead
one into thinking they were foundation charters, except for internal evidence
which is inconsistent with that conclusion.

The comforting point is that Roger, son of Margaret, was not born until about
1155, so would not succeed until about 1175, and died 1208/9. That is a period
we could be comfortable with seeing Geoffrey Peverel as a witness.

It may be that whoever compiled the initial cartulary or later scribes who made
marginal notations were in error in their understanding and observations

As to charters 12 and 13, if the Ralph, son of Roger involved was Ralph, born
1189/90, we would have no chronological difficulty. The difficulty is caused
by the interpretation of the identity of Domino Baudwino de Toenio. The
Baldwin who was son of Roger and Ida (as Chris observed) was supposed to have
been raised and lived in the Low Countries, and died in 1170.

Whereas we have Baldwin, son and heir of Roger, second son of Roger and Ida,
born about 1170, marrying a Bardulf heiress, holding lands in England, and
dying in 1216. As he was lord of substantial holdings in England (including
Holkham, Norfolk, Bergholt, Suffolk, Garsington, Oxford, and Whittlesford,
Cambs.), he would seem a better candidate, and the chronological difficulty
would be resolved.

Paul

This thread: