GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-08 > 1123556736


From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Mother of Robert Fitz Ralph, ancestor of the Greystoke family
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:05:36 GMT
References: <1123477541.297921.175160@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>


<> wrote in message
news:...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Complete Peerage, 5 (1926): 514, footnote g (sub Fitzwilliam)
> identifies Robert Fitz Ralph (born c. 1277, died 1317), male line
> ancestor of the Greystoke family, as the son and heir of Ralph Fitz
> William, Knt. (died 1317), of Grimthorpe, Yorkshire, by an unidentified
> first wife. In the footnote cited, Complete Peerage gives rather solid
> and compelling evidence that Robert Fitz Ralph could not possibly be
> the son of Ralph Fitz William's later wife, Margery de Bolebec, widow
> of Sir Nicholas Corbet (died 1280), as commonly thought to be the case
> by genealogists.
>
> Recently I located a lawsuit dated 1329-1330 which lends support to
> Complete Peerage's conclusions. The lawsuit in question concerns
> property in Northamptonshire which was part of the Bolebec inheritance.
> According to the lawsuit, Margery, wife of Ralph Fitz William, gave
> her part of the Bolebec family property to Ralph Fitz William (her
> husband), "and Ralph gave it to his son Robert." [Reference: The Eyre
> of Northamptonshire 3-4 Edward III, A.D. 1329-1330, 1 (Selden Soc. 97)
> (1983): 118-119]. The operative words here are "his son," rather than
> "their son," as Margery was not the mother of Robert at all, but rather
> she was his step-mother. The suit further indicates that at the time
> of the lawsuit, the property in question was held in dower by
> Elizabeth, widow of Robert Fitz Ralph.

The evidence is a bit more compelling and simple than that set out in the
footnote cited above: according to the article itself Margery married Ralph
Fitzwilliam under a royal license dated 1 November 1281, citing Fine Roll 10
Edward I, membrane 17. The same citation had been given for their marriage
taking place in 1282, by James Wilson in his paper on the Greystoke family
[_The Ancestor_ 6 (1903) p. 129 note 3].

Since CP goes on to show Ralph's elder son William marrying before 15 May
1290, and his younger son Robert being aged 40, or 40 and more, at his death
in February 1316/7, it's clear that both of his sons were born before
Margery could have had any children to him in 1282 at the earliest.

So why make a song and dance about this already established fact, based on a
mere pronoun contained in a third-hand account of a later transaction?

Peter Stewart


This thread: