GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-12 > 1133509008


From: "Douglas Richardson" <>
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (living 1094)
Date: 1 Dec 2005 23:36:48 -0800
References: <253.27205b8.30c0ad29@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <253.27205b8.30c0ad29@aol.com>


wrote:
> In a message dated 12/1/2005 2:08:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:
> Date: 1212. "Gilbert Fitz-Renfrey and Helewise his wife demand against
> Thomas de Brumfeld 4 carucates of land in Brumfel and Rohetun, as the
> right of the said Helewise and as those whereof Ketel son of Eutret,
> ancestor of the said Helewise, was seised, as of fee and right, in the
> time of King Henry [I], grandfather of king Henry [II], father of the
> king, and from him the right of the said Helewise descended from step
> to step. Thomas says that Adam his son holds the tenement; Curia Regis
> R., 55, m. 6 [Reference: William Farrer, Records relating to the Barony
> of kendale 1 (Cumberland & Westmoreland Antiquarian & Arhaeological
> Society Rec. Ser. 4) (1923): 5].
> Dear Doug,
>
> This merely shows what Todd and I stated at the beginning of the Gilbert
> fitzReinfrid thread. This proves that Chetell [Ketel] was an ancestor of the
> Lancaster family. He was the grandfather of William de Lancaster not his maternal
> uncle. This was explained earlier in this thread. The scribe misunderstood
> the relationship for unlike other direct relationships -nepos- had other
> meanings.
>
> MichaelAnne

The Latin word "antecessor" in the medieval time period simply means a
blood related predecessor. That includes a great-grand uncle. It does
not necessarily connote a direct line ancestor as we use the word
today.

Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan has it absolutely correct in her book,
Domesday Descendants. Ketel Fitz Eldred was the uncle of William de
Lancaster I. This is proven by contemporary charter evidence.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net


This thread: