SCT-ROYAL-L ArchivesArchiver > SCT-ROYAL > 2001-05 > 0989759945
From: Darren McCathern <>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 08:19:05 -0500
I am quite sure Rainald was the son of Roger de Montgomery. There
are several reasons for this. First let me state that I am descended
from Earl Roger through five of his children. Three of the Earl's
elder sons, and two of his youngest daughters. Rainald is actually
the longest line that I have to Roger de Montgomery. I have put
that particular lineage on-line because it was really interesting
research that I wished to share. The other children of Roger were
very well known and it was not near the challenge to find their parentage
as it was Rainald de Bailleul.
I descend the closest to Earl Roger through his son Robert Chorbet
(24th Great Grandfather). I am descended through his Scottish descendants
the De Ros family whom were claimants to the throne in the days before
John Baliol was crowed King.
As you might know, Rainald was the largest land Tenant that Earl
Roger had in England after the conquest. He held more land in his
holdings than all of the other Montgomery children combined. Apparently
the Regent of Normandy Earl Roger was quite fond of Rainald for one
reason or another, and had given him several of his personal holdings
in England and in Normandy. Some of this information comes from
Orderic Vitalis from St-Évroul, however there are other writings
as well that links Rainald as the son of Earl Roger.
In the books called The Cartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey written by
the monks from the Abby of Sees in Normandy they clearly list Rainald
de Bailleul as the second son of Roger Montgomery by his first wife.
These sons are listed in order of their descent from Earl Roger.
Richard de Belmeis
Rainald de Bailleul
I must say, it did take quite some time to research this! It was
very difficult and was confusing at times, however it is a connection
based upon official records kept at Shrewsbury Abby, I am pretty
sure the other publications also have utilized this important record
From what I understand Earl Roger lived to be quite old in age, his
first four children were some twenty years older than his younger
children were, this also has led to some confusion in records. When
we examine these records we find that the elder children of the Regent
assumed much more responsibility and lands than did his younger children.
My research indicated that his younger children might have remained
in Normandy for the purpose of protecting the family holdings as
during this time there was indeed some disturbances among the Royal
Family in connection with Duke William. Some were very loyal, and
others were not so happy about William being King of England.
This family is one of the more interesting to research among the
Norman families, their connection to ancient royalty is quite unique.
I hope this has helped!
Please visit us at:
|Bailleul by Darren McCathern <>|