GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-01 > 1294558508
From: Alex Maxwell Findlater <>
Subject: Re: Husband of Adelisa de Vere
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 23:35:08 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 9, 3:23 am, "Peter Stewart" <> wrote:
> "Peter Stewart" <> wrote in message news:...
> > "Bill Prokasy" <> wrote in message
> >> I wrote Professor Keats-Rohan to see what she thought about
> >> which of Adelisa de Vere’s husbands was the father of the
> >> Alice who married John the Constable of Chester. She was
> >> kind enough to write back, and this is quoted from her email:
> >> Alice de Vere, sister of Alberic III and wife successively of
> >> Robert (II) of Essex and Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth,
> >> occurs in two entries in the Rotuli de Dominabus of 1185.
> >> In the first, p. 29-39, she is described as aged 60 with two
> >> sons and a daughter married to John the constable of
> >> Chester. The Northamptonshire manor of Aynho is
> >> mentioned, which her nephew William de Mandeville had
> >> given her in addition to the dower provided by her husband
> >> Roger fitz Richard of Warkworth. The Clavering manor
> >> (p.76-7) held as part of her marriage into the Essex family
> >> also descended to her issue by Roger fitz Richard. There is
> >> no evidence that she had issue by Robert of Essex.
> > In *Geoffrey de Mandeville* (1892) p. 391 Round stated that Alice "married
> > twice, and left issue by both husbands", citing the chronicle of Walden
> > abbey, written early in the 13th century.
> > Unfortunately he did not quote the specific evidence from this, and I
> > don't have a copy of the edition, *The Book of the Foundation of Walden
> > Monastery*, edited by Diana Greenway & Leslie Watkiss, Oxford Medieval
> > Texts (Oxford, 1999).
> > Can anyone post the relevant text?
> After a little Googling I found this online - it's not shown not on Google
> Books, needless to say, but on the reader at Amazon.co.uk.
> Round was stretching the evidence, as the chronicle only says that Alice's
> first husband Robert de Essex left her some property to be transmitted to an
> heir, that she kept this until she died and then left it to her son by her
> second husband Roger. There is nothing to say that she had offspring by her
> first husband, and indeed the contrary is implied. The text is:
> "Domino quidem suo primo marito, Roberto sciilicet de Essexia...moriens
> tamen uxori dimisit liberam et quietam heredi reddendam...Predicta uero uxor
> illius Alicia terram dictam usque ad mortem propriam retinens, filio suo et
> heredi Roberto quem de alio uiro nomine Rogero susceperat dimisit" (p. 76).
> Peter Stewart- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
This Latin is not grammatical and doesn't make sense. 'Domino ....
Essexia' is in the dative, so cannot be the subject of the verb
dimisit. liberam et quietam are both adjectives and reddendam is a
gerundive, presumably agreeing with them, but there is no object for
them to describe. The Latin does not mention 'an' heir, nor indeed
'the' or even 'her' heir, as not using articles, whether definite or
indefinite. I would expect that what was implied was that someone,
who might indeed be Robert of Essex, would have had an heir, not
necessarily of the body, and the lands would revert to that heir after
her death, but that what is perhaps really being said is that she had
a good competence from him upon which to live, perhaps an enhanced
widow's terce. Is it possible to quote the full text, please?
|Re: Husband of Adelisa de Vere by Alex Maxwell Findlater <>|