Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2011-10 > 1319994345

From: Christopher Ingham <>
Subject: Re: More on the Ur Mother: Isabel (or Elizabeth) de Vermandois
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
References: <><><><><><>

On Oct 30, 12:48 pm, Douglas Richardson <> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 9:51 am, Christopher Ingham <>
> wrote:
> < Below is one line that I was fairly easily able to reconstruct from
> my
> < unwieldy 524-page pedigree chart in 8-pt. font for Robert Abell (I
> < really must learn how to use a program soon).
> <1. Elizabeth de Vermandois = Robert de Beaumont, earl of Leicester
> <2. Isabel de Beaumont = Gilbert de Clare, earl of Pembroke
> <3. Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke = Aoife [Eva] of Leinster
> <4. Isabel de Clare, countess of Pembroke = William Marshal, earl of
> Pembroke
> <5.  Eve Marshal = William de Briouse, baron of Kington
> <6.  Maud de Briouse = Roger de Mortimer, baron of Wigmore
> <7.  Iseult de Mortimer = Hugh de Audley, knt., of Stratton
> Christopher ~
> The line of descent you set forth for Robert Abell breaks at
> Generation 7 above.
> Iseult (your Generation 7), wife successively of Sir Walter de Balun
> and Sir Hugh de Audley, is claimed in many secondary sources to have
> been a member of Mortimer family.  While it is true that Iseult and
> her 1st husband, Sir Walter de Balun, had the manor of Arley,
> Staffordshire for the term of their lives by grant dated 1287 from Sir
> Edmund de Mortimer, this grant does not necessarily mean or imply that
> Iseult was a Mortimer.  On the other hand, Iseult’s grandson, Sir
> James de Audley, is known to have been related in some manner to Sir
> Bartholomew de Burghersh, which individual was a great-grandson of the
> same Sir Edmund de Mortimer [see Beltz, Memorials of the Order of the
> Garter].  As such, the possibility exists that Iseult was near related
> to Sir Edmund de Mortimer.  Even so, there is no known contemporary
> evidence which indicates Iseult’s exact parentage or even how she
> might have been related to Sir Edmund de Mortimer.  This matter
> deserves further study.
Thanks for that, Douglas. I obtained the information on the generation
in question (and several others) from_Plantagenet ancestry_.
Presumably the new edition has corrected this.

Christopher Ingham

This thread: