GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-12 > 1134165306


From:
Subject: Re: Douglas Richardson please read
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:55:06 EST



In a message dated 12/9/2005 4:16:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

We know very little about Orm Fitz Ketel's actual life. He appears as
a witness to a charter dated sometime after 1094, but before 1102. He
was probably a tenant under Roger, Count of Poitou, in Lancashire.
I'll have more to say about this charter in a later post.

If so, then I think it would be likely that his father is the Ketel who
owned several manors in 1066 in Lancashire and Yorkshire. This Ketel's
lands were in the hands of other parties in later generations, which
suggests to me that either he or his likely son, Orm, were dispossed of
these lands either by forfeiture or rebellion. It is possible that Orm
Fitz Ketel lost his father's lands and was banished in 1102, along with
his overlord, Roger, Count of Poitou.

A good deal of the above is conjecture, as the records before 1150 are
not very good. However, to prove the connection between Orm Fitz
Ketel, living 1094/1102, and the Ketel living in 1066, I think we have
only to prove that the overlordship of Ketel's lands in 1066 was held
in the 1080's-1102 by Count Roger of Poitou. Then we should know if
the conjecture holds any weight. I suspect this can be established.
We know the approximate area over which Count Roger was overlord. We
need only to show that Ketel's lands in 1066 fall within that area.

I find no evidence to suggest that Orm Fitz Ketel, born say 1070, was
the son of Ketel Fitz Eldred, who occurs in Cumberland in the 1120's.
As best I can determine, Ketel Fitz Eldred was slightly younger than
Orm Fitz Ketel. This would have to be true, by the way, if Ketel Fitz
Eldred was the grandson of Ives Taillebois, as stated in Keats-Rohan's
Domesday Descendants. I believe that Ives Taillebois was born say
1040. If so, then the earliest his grandson, Ketel Fitz Eldred, could
be born would be 1075.

I think the evidence is iffy that Gospatric Fitz Orm was closely
related to Ketel Fitz Eldred. Following Ketel Fitz Eldred's death, his
nephew and heir, William de Lancaster I, exchanged two manors for
another one held by Gospatric Fitz Orm, son of Orm Fitz Ketel. One of
the properties exchanged by William de Lancaster I appears to have been
held earlier by Ketel Fitz Eldred. My good friend and colleague,
Andrew MacEwen, of Maine is of the opinion that this charter was a
simple exchange, and does not represent a settlement of inheritance.
Andrew is probably correct. He's had considerable experience with
charters in this time period.

The short end of it: More research needs to be done before anything
really concrete can be said about the pedigrees prior to Orm Fitz Ketel
or to Ketel Fitz Eldred. What can be said at present is that almost
everything in print about these people contains major statements of
error and pays little or no attention to the actual chronology. I find
Wilson's comments in Register of St. Bees are especially untrustworthy.


Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



Dear Doug,

As you forwarded to me the copy of Kathleen Thompson's article and I
reviewed it with my thoughts to you I cannot believe that you still are citing any
information about Lancashire and Orm fitz Ketel.

Kathleen Thompson has written an article dating and comparing the three
existing versions of the charter of Roger de Poitevin from 1094. She based her
analysis on variations in the script and also the wording of each version. The
oldest version of this charter she calls MSS. B which was the original
charter of Roger de Poitevin written shortly before 1094. The second version is
MSS A. which was drafted a short time later with provisional changes in text of
the charter and the last version is MSS C which was drafted in the 1130s when
St. Marys, Lancaster was in dispute over land with Shrewsbury Abbey. MSS C.
was created to show a claim to the disputed land was actually in their
foundation charter which is how this copy came to exist. Thompson does a nice job
of proving her analysis of the copies.

This is important to this discussion as only in MSS. C is Orm given as a
witness. He is simply listed as Orm --- Ketel. It was later that someone
supposed this to be Orm fitz Ketel. It could have easily been Orm [et] Ketel as
these were very common names in northern England in this period. As I told you
privately after seeing this article and Thompson's proof I certainly wouldn't
use it as any evidence in the case of Orm fitz Ketel. This is a modified
charter and the witnesses in MSS. C do not show up in the other charters. I am
sure the copyist knew of people with these names who existed in this time
period in Lancashire but the signature Orm ---- Ketel is not definitive and was
an addition to a partially forged document.

This is no indication that Orm fitz Ketel was from Lancashire or even
connected with Roger de Poitevin as this copy of the charter is not reliable.

The subject of Ivo Taillebois and his lands has been shown not to be factor
in the ancestry of Ketel son of Eldred. Ivo Taillebois' lands reverted to the
crown upon his death as he left no legitimate heirs.

Why are we going over the same ground again.

MichaelAnne

This thread: