GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-11 > 1068761443


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Richard de Lande Patric
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:10:43 -0700
References: <20031113171458.73284.qmail@web21303.mail.yahoo.com>


paul bulkley wrote:
> Dear Todd:
>
> Thank you for your interesting information.
>
> Question: Who is Robert Fitz William of Malpas and
> where can I find information of this individual? As
> you know my record shows Letitia's father to be Robert
> Fitz Hugh (1st illegitimate son of Sir Hugh "Lupus"
> D'Averanche) and that she had a sister named Mabila
> who did marry into the Le Berwarde family.
>
> Question: Who did Mabilia marry if you are correct
> regarding Letitia?
>
> Finally Question: I note that you claim Keat Rohan as
> a source. I am again confused. Who is this Richard
> Mailant, and what has he got to do with this matter?

I noted after the post appeared that my pronoun usage left something to
be desired, so let me restate things.

Keats-Rohan has an entry in _Domesday Descendants_ for Letitia de
Malpas, sister and coheiress of Richard Mailant, both children of Robert
Fitz William. K-R also has an entry for Mailant, where she states that
Richard was son of Robert Fitz William, Domesday tennant of Hugh, earl
of Chester.

In her older _Domesday People_, Keats-Rohan has an entry for Robert Fitz
Hugh of Malpas, naming daughter Letitia. I could find no reference
there to Robert Fitz William of Malpas.

Thus the two books conflict. The question is whether the new one
represents a 'correction' of the old, or instead that a consistent error
has crept into the newer book.

taf

This thread: