GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-12 > 1133536162


From: "butlergrt" <>
Subject: Re: The parentage of Orm Fitz Ketel (Perhaps Not)
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:22 -0500
References: <1133380317.339715.29050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1133463812.514605.49670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>


Good Morning Richard et al,
I agree that Keats-Rohan and this Michael-Ann have done good work in
providing more material, but what it appears while they may be correct,
they may equally be as wrong by THEIR own evidence.
1. In the lawsuit aforementioned, where Helewise sues for the property of
Brumfel and Roheton and gives it as "step-by-step", inferred meaning
straight down the line succession of land, then that would infer that
William I Lancaster was Ketels son not nephew.
2. "Keats-Rohan's work Domesday Descendants(see copy below) Ketel fitz
Eldred"died several years after 1120" He occurs in a charter to St. Bees
Priory with a son William, But no Gospatrick."
Maybe so but what about Ketels son William, does she say he died,
disinherited, whatever? If one glosses over something to support a given
preconcieved conclusion that is as wrong as making a vanity chart! THIS
William would be then, step-by-step, in the above mentioned case.

He is then son William I Lancaster not a nephew William I Lancaster of
Ketel.
Regarding Orm alleged son or nephew of Ketel???
He could have been a 2nd son who didn't inherit anything and of course
recieved his lands from his father-in-law and grandfather Maldred who was
Lord of Allerdale. He could have een illegitimate he could have been a
step-son all of which could be interpreted. Morever, as lands given to his
son Gospatrick by William, Granted lands in Workington etc, by right of
ineritance, William as older and if Orm was dead was holding them and
possibly him as wardship.
3. The last Para. "FILIUS ELDRED,Ketel: son of Eldred and a dau. of Ivo
Taillcbois(q.v.) some of whose land in the barony of Kendal....""The
Parentage of William de Lancaster,Lord of Kendal, Transactions Cumberland
& Westmorland Antiquarian and Archeolo9gical Society 62 (1962). Dugdale,
Monasticon Anglicanum III, pp 548-60, No.V. Source Domesday Descandants,
by K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, p. 881, Eldred IS NOT EVEN DESCENDED FROM IVO, he
just married his daughter. So let us start from there: the Lancaster Line
however it goes, if the above is correct in the Charter of ST. Bee's and
surmising that Ketel was there and witnessed it, along with his son
WILLIAM, the Lancaster Line starts with just "ELDRED, NOT IVO"

I believe that Keats-Rohan, Michael-Ann ,You, Will Johnson and all the
othrs are doing wonderful work on this line that shows hows skewed history
is, as has been hither-to presented when finally digging up the relevant
facts.
It is also true that a "Ketel " appears in 1066 holding lands, it was the
manor of Holdgate in 1086 known as Stantune, that was originally a part of
the lands held by the church of Wenlock Started by Aethelred and
Aethelflaed, I often have wondered if that his how Eldred, Father of
Ketel, and this Aethelred came to be tied in? Ketel held the ancient lands
of Aethelred- his father Eldred..... BUT the manor of Holdgate consisted
of 5 estates(not 1) at 1066 held by Ketel,Genust,Alweard(Alward?),Dunning
and Aelfgifu. Brothers and sister? Ketel also held Little Pouston, part of
Almondbury before WTC, Bradley after, under Ilbert de Lacy.
Ketel shows up in a charter to the archbishop of York to the granting of
land,43 casati(?) in Patrington by King Cnut and witnessed by Ketel, Gamel
(Gamellus fitz Ketil) Chronica Monasterii de Melsa; and 2 Orms and an Ulf,
for what it is worth
Best Regards,
Emmett L. Butler


This thread: