Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 122-125 (sub Essex) includes an account of
the well known medieval figure, Sir Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex
(died 1213). The following information is given regarding Earl
Geoffrey's second marriage and death:
"He married (2ndly, before 29 May 1205, Aveline, widow of William de Munchanesy, of Swanscombe, Kent, Winfarthing and Gooderstone, Norfolk,
etc. (who died shortly before 7 May 1204), and daughter of Roger (de
Clare), Earl of Clare, or of Hertford, by Maud, daughter and heiress
of James de Saint Hilaire, of Dalling, Great and Little Carbrooke,
Norfolk, etc. He died 14 Oct. 1213, and was buried in Shouldham
Priory, which he had founded before 15 June 1198." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 437 (sub Fitzjohn) includes a chart which
shows that Sir Geoffrey Fitz Peter and his wife, Aveline de Clare, had
three children in all, namely a son, John Fitz Geoffrey, and two
daughters, Cecily (wife of Savary de Bohun) and Hawise (wife of
Reynold de Mohun).
However, there were actually five children in all. Besides the three children named by Complete Peerage in the FitzJohn account, Earl
Geoffrey and his wife, Aveline, had two additional daughters, namely
Maud Fitz Geoffrey (wife successively of Henry d'Oilly [died 1232], of
Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, King’s Constable, and William de Cantelowe,
Knt. [died 1251], of Eaton Bray, Bedfordshire, Steward of the Royal Household) and _____ (wife of William de la Rochelle [died 1227]).
What is strangely hidden from our view by Complete Peerage is the fact
that Geoffrey Fitz Peter was rather advanced in years at the time of
his 2nd marriage to Aveline de Clare and at his death eight years
later in 1213. Complete Peerage commences Geoffrey Fitz Peter's
career in 1185. However, I find that Geoffrey first surfaces decades
earlier in the period, 1157–66, when he witnessed an exchange of land between Roger de Tichborne and the Bishop of Winchester [see Franklin, English Episcopal Acta 8 (1993): 78–79]. In the subsequent survey of
1166, Geoffrey Fitz Peter held various lands of mesne lords: of Girard Giffard a knight's fee at Cherhill in Wiltshire, and, together with
Hugh de Diva, another knight's fee of the countess of Clare, and a
third of a knight's fee with the wife of Adam son of John son of Guy,
held of Walter of Beck.
These facts make it obvious that Earl Geoffrey was at least at least
68 years of age at his death, and probably even older. As such, I
find it questionable whether or not a man so advanced in years could
have produced five children in his marriage to Aveline de Clare which
last approximately eight years.
I've suspected for some time that two of the daughters that Earl
Geoffrey had by Aveline de Clare were the same person. If so, that
would cut down the number of children he had by Aveline from five to
four children. That would make sense. But which daughter is
duplicated?
I find that Earl Geoffrey had one unnamed daughter who was the wife of William de la Rochelle (or de la Rokele), of South Ockenham, Essex,
Market Lavington, Wiltshire, etc. In 1221 William de la Rochelle sued
Peter de la Mare regarding the manor of Lavington, Essex, together
with the advowson of the church. The dispute was settled in 1225 when
a partition was made between them. William de la Rochelle died
shortly before 7 April 1227 [References: C.P.R. 1225–1232 (1903): 116– 117. C.P.R. 1232–1247 (1906): 84. C.R.R. 10 (1949): 108. VCH
Wiltshire 10 (1975): 82–106. VCH Essex 7 (1978): 118]. The
subsequent history of William de la Rochelle's wife is unknown.
Evidence for the marriage of William de la Rochelle and a daughter of
Earl Geoffrey is found in an obscure Irish record of their son,
Richard de la Rochelle, published in Orpen, Ireland under the Normans 1216–1333, 3 (1920): 232. In this record, Richard de la Rochelle
refers to John Fitz Geoffrey as his uncle [avunculus]:
“In a quit-claim to the advowson of the church of Kenles in Fothered, Richard de la Rochelle calls John Fitz Geoffrey his avunculus: MS.
Kilkenny Castle, dated 1264.” END OF QUOTE.
The John Fitz Geoffrey named in this record is obviously the Justiciar
of Ireland, which man was the son of Earl Geoffrey Fitz Peter and his
wife, Aveline de Clare. The careers of John Fitz Geoffrey and his
nephew, Richard de la Rochelle, himself later Justiciar of Ireland,
cross paths several times in contemporary records, both in England and Ireland.
If Earl Geoffrey's daughter who married William de la Rochelle
survived to marry again, the question arises which of his other known daughters would fit to be the same person as this daughter. That's a difficult question. For reasons which I won't go into now, I believe
we can rule out Cecily and Maud. That leaves us Hawise Fitz Geoffrey
who was the wife of Sir Reynold de Mohun.
We know for certain that William de la Rochelle died shortly before 7
April 1227. In the very same year I find that Hawise daughter of
Geoffrey Fitz Peter was pardoned 8 Nov. 1227 for a debt of 20s. for
which she was amerced [see Cal. Close Rolls, 1227–1231 (1902): 3].
Hawise was presumably a widow in Nov. 1227, for she would hardly have occured in records if she was a young unmarried woman, and she
wouldn't have occurred without a husband unless she was a widow. This suggests that Hawise Fitz Geoffrey had a hitherto unknown first
marriage before her known marriage to Sir Reynold de Mohun.
However, beyond this one solitary record, I've found no other
indication that the wife of William de la Rochelle is the same person
as Hawise Fitz Geoffrey, wife of Sir Reynold de Mohun.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 at 10:03:47 PM UTC+2, Douglas Richardson wrote:was justiciar in Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire. However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for example from the Gascon Rolls,
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 122-125 (sub Essex) includes an account of
the well known medieval figure, Sir Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Earl of Essex
(died 1213). The following information is given regarding Earl
Geoffrey's second marriage and death:
"He married (2ndly, before 29 May 1205, Aveline, widow of William de
Munchanesy, of Swanscombe, Kent, Winfarthing and Gooderstone, Norfolk,
etc. (who died shortly before 7 May 1204), and daughter of Roger (de
Clare), Earl of Clare, or of Hertford, by Maud, daughter and heiress
of James de Saint Hilaire, of Dalling, Great and Little Carbrooke,
Norfolk, etc. He died 14 Oct. 1213, and was buried in Shouldham
Priory, which he had founded before 15 June 1198." END OF QUOTE.
Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 437 (sub Fitzjohn) includes a chart which
shows that Sir Geoffrey Fitz Peter and his wife, Aveline de Clare, had
three children in all, namely a son, John Fitz Geoffrey, and two
daughters, Cecily (wife of Savary de Bohun) and Hawise (wife of
Reynold de Mohun).
However, there were actually five children in all. Besides the three
children named by Complete Peerage in the FitzJohn account, Earl
Geoffrey and his wife, Aveline, had two additional daughters, namely
Maud Fitz Geoffrey (wife successively of Henry d'Oilly [died 1232], of
Hook Norton, Oxfordshire, King’s Constable, and William de Cantelowe,
Knt. [died 1251], of Eaton Bray, Bedfordshire, Steward of the Royal
Household) and _____ (wife of William de la Rochelle [died 1227]).
What is strangely hidden from our view by Complete Peerage is the fact
that Geoffrey Fitz Peter was rather advanced in years at the time of
his 2nd marriage to Aveline de Clare and at his death eight years
later in 1213. Complete Peerage commences Geoffrey Fitz Peter's
career in 1185. However, I find that Geoffrey first surfaces decades
earlier in the period, 1157–66, when he witnessed an exchange of land
between Roger de Tichborne and the Bishop of Winchester [see Franklin,
English Episcopal Acta 8 (1993): 78–79]. In the subsequent survey of
1166, Geoffrey Fitz Peter held various lands of mesne lords: of Girard
Giffard a knight's fee at Cherhill in Wiltshire, and, together with
Hugh de Diva, another knight's fee of the countess of Clare, and a
third of a knight's fee with the wife of Adam son of John son of Guy,
held of Walter of Beck.
These facts make it obvious that Earl Geoffrey was at least at least
68 years of age at his death, and probably even older. As such, I
find it questionable whether or not a man so advanced in years could
have produced five children in his marriage to Aveline de Clare which
last approximately eight years.
I've suspected for some time that two of the daughters that Earl
Geoffrey had by Aveline de Clare were the same person. If so, that
would cut down the number of children he had by Aveline from five to
four children. That would make sense. But which daughter is
duplicated?
I find that Earl Geoffrey had one unnamed daughter who was the wife of
William de la Rochelle (or de la Rokele), of South Ockenham, Essex,
Market Lavington, Wiltshire, etc. In 1221 William de la Rochelle sued
Peter de la Mare regarding the manor of Lavington, Essex, together
with the advowson of the church. The dispute was settled in 1225 when
a partition was made between them. William de la Rochelle died
shortly before 7 April 1227 [References: C.P.R. 1225–1232 (1903): 116– >> 117. C.P.R. 1232–1247 (1906): 84. C.R.R. 10 (1949): 108. VCH
Wiltshire 10 (1975): 82–106. VCH Essex 7 (1978): 118]. The
subsequent history of William de la Rochelle's wife is unknown.
Evidence for the marriage of William de la Rochelle and a daughter of
Earl Geoffrey is found in an obscure Irish record of their son,
Richard de la Rochelle, published in Orpen, Ireland under the Normans
1216–1333, 3 (1920): 232. In this record, Richard de la Rochelle
refers to John Fitz Geoffrey as his uncle [avunculus]:
“In a quit-claim to the advowson of the church of Kenles in Fothered,
Richard de la Rochelle calls John Fitz Geoffrey his avunculus: MS.
Kilkenny Castle, dated 1264.” END OF QUOTE.
The John Fitz Geoffrey named in this record is obviously the Justiciar
of Ireland, which man was the son of Earl Geoffrey Fitz Peter and his
wife, Aveline de Clare. The careers of John Fitz Geoffrey and his
nephew, Richard de la Rochelle, himself later Justiciar of Ireland,
cross paths several times in contemporary records, both in England and
Ireland.
If Earl Geoffrey's daughter who married William de la Rochelle
survived to marry again, the question arises which of his other known
daughters would fit to be the same person as this daughter. That's a
difficult question. For reasons which I won't go into now, I believe
we can rule out Cecily and Maud. That leaves us Hawise Fitz Geoffrey
who was the wife of Sir Reynold de Mohun.
We know for certain that William de la Rochelle died shortly before 7
April 1227. In the very same year I find that Hawise daughter of
Geoffrey Fitz Peter was pardoned 8 Nov. 1227 for a debt of 20s. for
which she was amerced [see Cal. Close Rolls, 1227–1231 (1902): 3].
Hawise was presumably a widow in Nov. 1227, for she would hardly have
occured in records if she was a young unmarried woman, and she
wouldn't have occurred without a husband unless she was a widow. This
suggests that Hawise Fitz Geoffrey had a hitherto unknown first
marriage before her known marriage to Sir Reynold de Mohun.
However, beyond this one solitary record, I've found no other
indication that the wife of William de la Rochelle is the same person
as Hawise Fitz Geoffrey, wife of Sir Reynold de Mohun.
Comments are invited.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic. Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who
The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not give a source.
On 17-Aug-22 10:34 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of
whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl
Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic.
Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who was justiciar in
Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son
and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire.
However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for
example from the Gascon Rolls, that this Richard did take over in
Market Lavington, but when and on what basis? Could he be a cousin for
example?
The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was
son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death
date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not
give a source.
I'm not sure how the paternity of Richard de Rokele is a "prior step in
the logic" for the post from Douglas Richardson about descendants of
Geoffrey FitzPeter rather than a new topic about ancestry in a different family - but in any case I don't think the parentage of Edward I's
friend Richard the justiciar in Ireland is known from a medieval source rather than just guessed or deduced, including by Morant.
You may find some information about Rokele connections in a biography of William Langland, author of Piers Plowman, whose father is believed to
have been Eustace de Rokele.
On 18-Aug-22 2:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Aug-22 10:34 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of
whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl
Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic.
Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who was justiciar in
Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son
and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire.
However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for
example from the Gascon Rolls, that this Richard did take over in
Market Lavington, but when and on what basis? Could he be a cousin for
example?
The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was
son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death
date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not
give a source.
I'm not sure how the paternity of Richard de Rokele is a "prior step in the logic" for the post from Douglas Richardson about descendants of Geoffrey FitzPeter rather than a new topic about ancestry in a different family - but in any case I don't think the parentage of Edward I's
friend Richard the justiciar in Ireland is known from a medieval source rather than just guessed or deduced, including by Morant.
You may find some information about Rokele connections in a biography of William Langland, author of Piers Plowman, whose father is believed to have been Eustace de Rokele.A useful starting point might be Robert Adams, 'Langland and the Rokele Family: The Gentry Background to Piers Plowman' (Four Courts Press,
Dublin, 2013). I haven't seen this, but it seems likely that Adams has attempted to trace Richard de Rokele's 12th/13th century connections.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:48:48 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:later authors, but that is not to say it can't be worked out. If you come at it from the history of Market Lavington it looks different though, as if Richard might be the heir of William there. I did find a record in the Gascon rolls which makes it clear
On 18-Aug-22 2:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Aug-22 10:34 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:A useful starting point might be Robert Adams, 'Langland and the Rokele
Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of
whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl
Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic.
Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who was justiciar in
Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son
and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire.
However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for
example from the Gascon Rolls, that this Richard did take over in
Market Lavington, but when and on what basis? Could he be a cousin for >>>> example?
The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was >>>> son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death
date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not >>>> give a source.
I'm not sure how the paternity of Richard de Rokele is a "prior step in
the logic" for the post from Douglas Richardson about descendants of
Geoffrey FitzPeter rather than a new topic about ancestry in a different >>> family - but in any case I don't think the parentage of Edward I's
friend Richard the justiciar in Ireland is known from a medieval source
rather than just guessed or deduced, including by Morant.
You may find some information about Rokele connections in a biography of >>> William Langland, author of Piers Plowman, whose father is believed to
have been Eustace de Rokele.
Family: The Gentry Background to Piers Plowman' (Four Courts Press,
Dublin, 2013). I haven't seen this, but it seems likely that Adams has
attempted to trace Richard de Rokele's 12th/13th century connections.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks Peter. "Prior step" was indeed the wrong term. It is just a point being taken as proven within the original summary. I could not yet find a good rationale for. It does indeed look like this is a case where Morant might be the basis for a lot of
On 18-Aug-22 10:47 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:of later authors, but that is not to say it can't be worked out. If you come at it from the history of Market Lavington it looks different though, as if Richard might be the heir of William there. I did find a record in the Gascon rolls which makes it
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:48:48 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 18-Aug-22 2:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Aug-22 10:34 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:A useful starting point might be Robert Adams, 'Langland and the Rokele >> Family: The Gentry Background to Piers Plowman' (Four Courts Press,
Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of
whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl >>>> Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic. >>>> Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who was justiciar in
Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son >>>> and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire.
However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for
example from the Gascon Rolls, that this Richard did take over in
Market Lavington, but when and on what basis? Could he be a cousin for >>>> example?
The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was >>>> son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death >>>> date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not >>>> give a source.
I'm not sure how the paternity of Richard de Rokele is a "prior step in >>> the logic" for the post from Douglas Richardson about descendants of
Geoffrey FitzPeter rather than a new topic about ancestry in a different >>> family - but in any case I don't think the parentage of Edward I's
friend Richard the justiciar in Ireland is known from a medieval source >>> rather than just guessed or deduced, including by Morant.
You may find some information about Rokele connections in a biography of >>> William Langland, author of Piers Plowman, whose father is believed to >>> have been Eustace de Rokele.
Dublin, 2013). I haven't seen this, but it seems likely that Adams has
attempted to trace Richard de Rokele's 12th/13th century connections.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks Peter. "Prior step" was indeed the wrong term. It is just a point being taken as proven within the original summary. I could not yet find a good rationale for. It does indeed look like this is a case where Morant might be the basis for a lot
Have you followed up the citations given in VCH Essex vol. 7 p. 118?
(here: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp117-126):
"By 1187 William Doo (D'Ou) possessed the manor. The witnessing clauses
of certain grants to Brook Street hospital, South Weald, in 1163 × 1187
and 1275, with other evidence, suggest that in the 12th century there existed a family, holding the manors of South Ockendon and Willingdale
Doe (Essex) and (Market) Lavington (Wilts.), for whom the names of Ou
and Rochelle were interchangeable. (fn. 33: Reg. Sudbury (Cant. & York Soc.), i. 210–11; Cart. Mon. Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria (Roxburghe Club) i. 4; E.A.T. N.S. viii. 375; Feet of F. Essex, i.
272–3; Reg. Regum Anglo-Norm. iii, p. 102; Cur. Reg. R. x. 108; E.R.O., T/P 195/2, p. 6; V.C.H. Wilts, x. 87.) Godfrey de la Rochelle, who lived under Henry I, was apparently succeeded by his daughter Agnes, she by
her son Richard de la Rochelle, who died before 1195, and he by his son William de la Rochelle. (fn. 34: Cur. Reg. R. x. 108. William was
already paying scutage for the Lavington manor in 1194–5: Red Bk. Exch. (Rolls Ser.), i. 89.) William had died by 1198. (fn. 35: Pipe R. 1198 (P.R.S. N.S. ix), 138.) His heir, also named William de la Rochelle, succeeded as a minor and died c. 1226. (fn. 36: Cur. Reg. R. xi. 469;
Bk. of Fees, ii. 1347, 1349.) (Sir) Richard de la Rochelle, heir of the last-named William, was still a minor in 1234, but was married a decade later, and by 1255 had entered on an Irish career, first as deputy to
the Justiciar of Ireland, and from 1261 as Justiciar himself. (fn. 37:
Close R. 1231–4, 373; 1242–7, 207; 1254–6, 158–9; 1261–4, 11.)"
If William (died ca 1226) was a minor when he succeeded by 1198 and his
heir Richard was still a minor in 1234 it is apparent that these two belonged to different, and probably successive, generations. Collateral inheritance does not usually work out that way, as inheritance by a
cousin is more common than by a cousin once (or more than once) removed. Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 12:45:43 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:of later authors, but that is not to say it can't be worked out. If you come at it from the history of Market Lavington it looks different though, as if Richard might be the heir of William there. I did find a record in the Gascon rolls which makes it
On 18-Aug-22 10:47 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:48:48 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 18-Aug-22 2:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Aug-22 10:34 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:A useful starting point might be Robert Adams, 'Langland and the Rokele >>>> Family: The Gentry Background to Piers Plowman' (Four Courts Press,
Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of
whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl >>>>>> Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic. >>>>>> Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who was justiciar in
Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son >>>>>> and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire. >>>>>> However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for >>>>>> example from the Gascon Rolls, that this Richard did take over in
Market Lavington, but when and on what basis? Could he be a cousin for >>>>>> example?
The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was >>>>>> son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death >>>>>> date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not >>>>>> give a source.
I'm not sure how the paternity of Richard de Rokele is a "prior step in >>>>> the logic" for the post from Douglas Richardson about descendants of >>>>> Geoffrey FitzPeter rather than a new topic about ancestry in a different >>>>> family - but in any case I don't think the parentage of Edward I's
friend Richard the justiciar in Ireland is known from a medieval source >>>>> rather than just guessed or deduced, including by Morant.
You may find some information about Rokele connections in a biography of >>>>> William Langland, author of Piers Plowman, whose father is believed to >>>>> have been Eustace de Rokele.
Dublin, 2013). I haven't seen this, but it seems likely that Adams has >>>> attempted to trace Richard de Rokele's 12th/13th century connections.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks Peter. "Prior step" was indeed the wrong term. It is just a point being taken as proven within the original summary. I could not yet find a good rationale for. It does indeed look like this is a case where Morant might be the basis for a lot
org/details/closerollsofreig02grea/page/373 and https://archive.org/details/closerollsofrei03grea/page/22Have you followed up the citations given in VCH Essex vol. 7 p. 118?
(here: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp117-126):
"By 1187 William Doo (D'Ou) possessed the manor. The witnessing clauses
of certain grants to Brook Street hospital, South Weald, in 1163 × 1187
and 1275, with other evidence, suggest that in the 12th century there
existed a family, holding the manors of South Ockendon and Willingdale
Doe (Essex) and (Market) Lavington (Wilts.), for whom the names of Ou
and Rochelle were interchangeable. (fn. 33: Reg. Sudbury (Cant. & York
Soc.), i. 210–11; Cart. Mon. Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria
(Roxburghe Club) i. 4; E.A.T. N.S. viii. 375; Feet of F. Essex, i.
272–3; Reg. Regum Anglo-Norm. iii, p. 102; Cur. Reg. R. x. 108; E.R.O.,
T/P 195/2, p. 6; V.C.H. Wilts, x. 87.) Godfrey de la Rochelle, who lived
under Henry I, was apparently succeeded by his daughter Agnes, she by
her son Richard de la Rochelle, who died before 1195, and he by his son
William de la Rochelle. (fn. 34: Cur. Reg. R. x. 108. William was
already paying scutage for the Lavington manor in 1194–5: Red Bk. Exch.
(Rolls Ser.), i. 89.) William had died by 1198. (fn. 35: Pipe R. 1198
(P.R.S. N.S. ix), 138.) His heir, also named William de la Rochelle,
succeeded as a minor and died c. 1226. (fn. 36: Cur. Reg. R. xi. 469;
Bk. of Fees, ii. 1347, 1349.) (Sir) Richard de la Rochelle, heir of the
last-named William, was still a minor in 1234, but was married a decade
later, and by 1255 had entered on an Irish career, first as deputy to
the Justiciar of Ireland, and from 1261 as Justiciar himself. (fn. 37:
Close R. 1231–4, 373; 1242–7, 207; 1254–6, 158–9; 1261–4, 11.)"
If William (died ca 1226) was a minor when he succeeded by 1198 and his
heir Richard was still a minor in 1234 it is apparent that these two
belonged to different, and probably successive, generations. Collateral
inheritance does not usually work out that way, as inheritance by a
cousin is more common than by a cousin once (or more than once) removed.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks again Peter. Yes I've followed up some of the leads in that entry and also other such summaries. From what I had seen so far the heir to William in Lavington is never named during his minority. I looked at Close Rolls, e.g. 1234 https://archive.
I just looked at another Close Roll, for 1343 and I am presuming this does confirm that the heir's name was Richard and that by this time he was no longer a minor. Am I right to read it that way? https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig05grea/page/15/
Was William ever associated with South Okendon in any primary record? I've just looked at one record I had not checked and found evidence that William was in Essex. Book of Fees II, p. 1347 shows his wife in Chafford hundred, which I think containsSouth Okendon. Johanna que fuit uxor Willelmi de la Rokel' est de donacione domini regis. Et est maritanda, et terra sua de dote valet xxx.l. On p. 1349 under Dunemawe, there he is again: Heres Willelmi de la Rokeles est in custodia domini regis, et
Morant seemed quite confident in giving an exact death in 1222 for a Richard, supposedly the father of the justiciary of Ireland with the same name who held both manors. So Occam's razor gives a clear answer, but it would mean Morant's exact death datewas a fantasy. I think it would be best if we could exclude the possibility that Richard did not become heir to a cousin, for example after the young heir died. If we take Morant seriously there may have been two branches of Rokeles around 1222. FWIW
https://books.google.be/books?id=s1THDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA215
Can anyone help me identify "Cur. Reg. R. xi. 469"? Even better, does anyone happen to have access to it?
On 19-Aug-22 8:57 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:of later authors, but that is not to say it can't be worked out. If you come at it from the history of Market Lavington it looks different though, as if Richard might be the heir of William there. I did find a record in the Gascon rolls which makes it
On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 12:45:43 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 18-Aug-22 10:47 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 6:48:48 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 18-Aug-22 2:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 17-Aug-22 10:34 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:A useful starting point might be Robert Adams, 'Langland and the Rokele >>>> Family: The Gentry Background to Piers Plowman' (Four Courts Press, >>>> Dublin, 2013). I haven't seen this, but it seems likely that Adams has >>>> attempted to trace Richard de Rokele's 12th/13th century connections. >>>> Peter Stewart
Coming back to a very old post. The topic here is the question of >>>>>> whether the de la Rokele, or Rupella family are descended from Earl >>>>>> Geoffrey Fitz Peter, but I'd like to check a prior step in the logic. >>>>>> Do we know the father of Richard de Rokele who was justiciar in >>>>>> Ireland. If I understand correctly it is being assumed that he is son >>>>>> and heir of William de la Rokele of Market Lavington in Wiltshire. >>>>>> However I can find no record which confirms this. It is clear, for >>>>>> example from the Gascon Rolls, that this Richard did take over in >>>>>> Market Lavington, but when and on what basis? Could he be a cousin for
example?
The reason for suspicion is that Morant believed that this Richard was
son of another Richard, who died in 1222. he even gave an exact death >>>>>> date in his chapter on South Okendon. Unfortunately though, he did not
give a source.
I'm not sure how the paternity of Richard de Rokele is a "prior step in
the logic" for the post from Douglas Richardson about descendants of >>>>> Geoffrey FitzPeter rather than a new topic about ancestry in a different
family - but in any case I don't think the parentage of Edward I's >>>>> friend Richard the justiciar in Ireland is known from a medieval source
rather than just guessed or deduced, including by Morant.
You may find some information about Rokele connections in a biography of
William Langland, author of Piers Plowman, whose father is believed to >>>>> have been Eustace de Rokele.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks Peter. "Prior step" was indeed the wrong term. It is just a point being taken as proven within the original summary. I could not yet find a good rationale for. It does indeed look like this is a case where Morant might be the basis for a lot
archive.org/details/closerollsofreig02grea/page/373 and https://archive.org/details/closerollsofrei03grea/page/22Have you followed up the citations given in VCH Essex vol. 7 p. 118?
(here: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp117-126):
"By 1187 William Doo (D'Ou) possessed the manor. The witnessing clauses >> of certain grants to Brook Street hospital, South Weald, in 1163 × 1187 >> and 1275, with other evidence, suggest that in the 12th century there
existed a family, holding the manors of South Ockendon and Willingdale
Doe (Essex) and (Market) Lavington (Wilts.), for whom the names of Ou
and Rochelle were interchangeable. (fn. 33: Reg. Sudbury (Cant. & York
Soc.), i. 210–11; Cart. Mon. Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria
(Roxburghe Club) i. 4; E.A.T. N.S. viii. 375; Feet of F. Essex, i.
272–3; Reg. Regum Anglo-Norm. iii, p. 102; Cur. Reg. R. x. 108; E.R.O., >> T/P 195/2, p. 6; V.C.H. Wilts, x. 87.) Godfrey de la Rochelle, who lived >> under Henry I, was apparently succeeded by his daughter Agnes, she by
her son Richard de la Rochelle, who died before 1195, and he by his son >> William de la Rochelle. (fn. 34: Cur. Reg. R. x. 108. William was
already paying scutage for the Lavington manor in 1194–5: Red Bk. Exch. >> (Rolls Ser.), i. 89.) William had died by 1198. (fn. 35: Pipe R. 1198
(P.R.S. N.S. ix), 138.) His heir, also named William de la Rochelle,
succeeded as a minor and died c. 1226. (fn. 36: Cur. Reg. R. xi. 469;
Bk. of Fees, ii. 1347, 1349.) (Sir) Richard de la Rochelle, heir of the >> last-named William, was still a minor in 1234, but was married a decade >> later, and by 1255 had entered on an Irish career, first as deputy to
the Justiciar of Ireland, and from 1261 as Justiciar himself. (fn. 37:
Close R. 1231–4, 373; 1242–7, 207; 1254–6, 158–9; 1261–4, 11.)" >>
If William (died ca 1226) was a minor when he succeeded by 1198 and his >> heir Richard was still a minor in 1234 it is apparent that these two
belonged to different, and probably successive, generations. Collateral >> inheritance does not usually work out that way, as inheritance by a
cousin is more common than by a cousin once (or more than once) removed. >> Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks again Peter. Yes I've followed up some of the leads in that entry and also other such summaries. From what I had seen so far the heir to William in Lavington is never named during his minority. I looked at Close Rolls, e.g. 1234 https://
page/15/I just looked at another Close Roll, for 1343 and I am presuming this does confirm that the heir's name was Richard and that by this time he was no longer a minor. Am I right to read it that way? https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig05grea/
South Okendon. Johanna que fuit uxor Willelmi de la Rokel' est de donacione domini regis. Et est maritanda, et terra sua de dote valet xxx.l. On p. 1349 under Dunemawe, there he is again: Heres Willelmi de la Rokeles est in custodia domini regis, etWas William ever associated with South Okendon in any primary record? I've just looked at one record I had not checked and found evidence that William was in Essex. Book of Fees II, p. 1347 shows his wife in Chafford hundred, which I think contains
date was a fantasy. I think it would be best if we could exclude the possibility that Richard did not become heir to a cousin, for example after the young heir died. If we take Morant seriously there may have been two branches of Rokeles around 1222.Morant seemed quite confident in giving an exact death in 1222 for a Richard, supposedly the father of the justiciary of Ireland with the same name who held both manors. So Occam's razor gives a clear answer, but it would mean Morant's exact death
https://books.google.be/books?id=s1THDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA215
Can anyone help me identify "Cur. Reg. R. xi. 469"? Even better, does anyone happen to have access to it?This is volume 11 (1955) of *Curia regis rolls preserved in the Public Record Office*, covering 7-9 Henry III. I don't have a copy.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
Obviously, going back to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting to identify the connection with Geoffrey fitz Peter. I think over the years this list has gotten more sensitive about the original method in this thread wherebyavunculus just becomes "uncle". Concerning that point I suppose it is interesting that one of the Close Roll references seems to name William widow.
On 20-Aug-22 3:06 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:avunculus just becomes "uncle". Concerning that point I suppose it is interesting that one of the Close Roll references seems to name William widow.
<snip>
Obviously, going back to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting to identify the connection with Geoffrey fitz Peter. I think over the years this list has gotten more sensitive about the original method in this thread whereby
I don't understand exactly what you are getting at regarding the 'method
.. whereby avunculus just becomes "uncle"'. The word in classical Latin meant a mother's brother, but in medieval usage this was extended to a father's brother (more correctly "patruus"), that can hardly be the understanding in this case.
Apart from the idiomatic "oncle à la mode de Bretagne", where avunculus could also be used for a first cousin of either parent, that is not at
all indicated here as far as I can see, what else do you have in mind?
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:19:54 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:avunculus just becomes "uncle". Concerning that point I suppose it is interesting that one of the Close Roll references seems to name William widow.
On 20-Aug-22 3:06 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Obviously, going back to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting to identify the connection with Geoffrey fitz Peter. I think over the years this list has gotten more sensitive about the original method in this thread whereby
flexible way. By the way, could it never mean "great uncle"?I don't understand exactly what you are getting at regarding the 'method
.. whereby avunculus just becomes "uncle"'. The word in classical Latin
meant a mother's brother, but in medieval usage this was extended to a
father's brother (more correctly "patruus"), that can hardly be the
understanding in this case.
Apart from the idiomatic "oncle à la mode de Bretagne", where avunculus
could also be used for a first cousin of either parent, that is not at
all indicated here as far as I can see, what else do you have in mind?
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Well, trying to exclude that it meant patruus is one aspect, but you might be right that other facts of the case make it unlikely. I basically just wanted to say that we have to be careful to exclude the possibility of the word being used in a more
On 20-Aug-22 6:28 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:avunculus just becomes "uncle". Concerning that point I suppose it is interesting that one of the Close Roll references seems to name William widow.
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:19:54 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 20-Aug-22 3:06 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Obviously, going back to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting to identify the connection with Geoffrey fitz Peter. I think over the years this list has gotten more sensitive about the original method in this thread whereby
flexible way. By the way, could it never mean "great uncle"?I don't understand exactly what you are getting at regarding the 'method >> .. whereby avunculus just becomes "uncle"'. The word in classical Latin >> meant a mother's brother, but in medieval usage this was extended to a
father's brother (more correctly "patruus"), that can hardly be the
understanding in this case.
Apart from the idiomatic "oncle à la mode de Bretagne", where avunculus >> could also be used for a first cousin of either parent, that is not at
all indicated here as far as I can see, what else do you have in mind?
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Well, trying to exclude that it meant patruus is one aspect, but you might be right that other facts of the case make it unlikely. I basically just wanted to say that we have to be careful to exclude the possibility of the word being used in a more
There is surely no word that could _never_ be misused, and no
relationship term that could not be inaccurately applied.
The proper usuage for great-uncle was, not surprisingly, 'avunculus
magnus', for great-grand-uncle 'proavunculus', and for great-great-grand-uncle abavunculus'.
These were set out in a matrix by St Ivo of Chartres in his *Decreta*,
and in other common reference works, derived from Isidore of Seville's etymologies.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 10:55:09 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:avunculus just becomes "uncle". Concerning that point I suppose it is interesting that one of the Close Roll references seems to name William widow.
On 20-Aug-22 6:28 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 20, 2022 at 12:19:54 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 20-Aug-22 3:06 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Obviously, going back to the original point of this thread, it would be interesting to identify the connection with Geoffrey fitz Peter. I think over the years this list has gotten more sensitive about the original method in this thread whereby
flexible way. By the way, could it never mean "great uncle"?I don't understand exactly what you are getting at regarding the 'method >>>> .. whereby avunculus just becomes "uncle"'. The word in classical Latin >>>> meant a mother's brother, but in medieval usage this was extended to a >>>> father's brother (more correctly "patruus"), that can hardly be the
understanding in this case.
Apart from the idiomatic "oncle à la mode de Bretagne", where avunculus >>>> could also be used for a first cousin of either parent, that is not at >>>> all indicated here as far as I can see, what else do you have in mind? >>>> Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Well, trying to exclude that it meant patruus is one aspect, but you might be right that other facts of the case make it unlikely. I basically just wanted to say that we have to be careful to exclude the possibility of the word being used in a more
There is surely no word that could _never_ be misused, and no
relationship term that could not be inaccurately applied.
The proper usuage for great-uncle was, not surprisingly, 'avunculus
magnus', for great-grand-uncle 'proavunculus', and for
great-great-grand-uncle abavunculus'.
These were set out in a matrix by St Ivo of Chartres in his *Decreta*,
and in other common reference works, derived from Isidore of Seville's
etymologies.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Yes but some "wrong" usages were more common than others? (For example avunculus for patruus is relatively common.)
As for extended usages that were less common, the main one of concern in
this forum is nepos for a relative who was not either a grandson or a
nephew. But this is hardly frequent enough to be a necessary
consideration in all cases, and some discussions here in the past have
been unduly anxious about it.
On 21-Aug-22 9:22 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
As for extended usages that were less common, the main one of concern in this forum is nepos for a relative who was not either a grandson or a nephew. But this is hardly frequent enough to be a necessaryAn odder extension of meaning that could possibly lead to error is the occasional use of 'mater' (mother) for a wet-nurse - for instance, we
consideration in all cases, and some discussions here in the past have been unduly anxious about it.
know from his own charter dated September 1205 that the parents of
Guillaume II Talvas, count of Ponthieu, were his predecessor Jean I and
the latter's third wife Beatrix ("ego Willelmus, comes Pontivi et
Moustreoli ... Johannes, pater meus, et Beatrix, mater mea"). However,
in a charter dated 2 June 1194 Guillaume had described a woman named
Oda, last in a list of family retainers, as 'my mother' ("Et sciendum
est quod extra communiam pono liberum et quietum Johannem hostiarium, et Petrum falconarium, et Dodelinum cimentarium, et Robertum ballulium ...
et Odam, matrem meam"). Of course the context here makes it obvious that
Oda was a servant, but that may not always happen.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:43:10 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 21-Aug-22 9:22 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
As for extended usages that were less common, the main one of concern in this forum is nepos for a relative who was not either a grandson or a nephew. But this is hardly frequent enough to be a necessary consideration in all cases, and some discussions here in the past have been unduly anxious about it.An odder extension of meaning that could possibly lead to error is the occasional use of 'mater' (mother) for a wet-nurse - for instance, we
know from his own charter dated September 1205 that the parents of Guillaume II Talvas, count of Ponthieu, were his predecessor Jean I and the latter's third wife Beatrix ("ego Willelmus, comes Pontivi et Moustreoli ... Johannes, pater meus, et Beatrix, mater mea"). However,
in a charter dated 2 June 1194 Guillaume had described a woman named
Oda, last in a list of family retainers, as 'my mother' ("Et sciendum
est quod extra communiam pono liberum et quietum Johannem hostiarium, et Petrum falconarium, et Dodelinum cimentarium, et Robertum ballulium ...
et Odam, matrem meam"). Of course the context here makes it obvious that Oda was a servant, but that may not always happen.
Peter Stewart
Richard.--Thanks once more. For anyone following this, at least one of the most relevant legal cases is summarised in Wrottesley: https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/260/mode/2up Unfortunately this does not get us to the Irish jusiticiar
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
However, I suppose there is no objection to my interpretation of the 1343 Close Roll https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig05grea/page/15/ as a missing link which seems to make it clear that Richard was the heir of William who had been under thewardship of Philip de Albiniaco for example in 1234 https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig02grea/page/373 and https://archive.org/details/closerollsofrei03grea/page/22
There also seems to be no objection to my proposal that the widow of William d. 1227 was named Joanna, which means she can not have been Hawise as proposed at the beginning of this old thread. Unfortunately I don't think this means we can say thatJoanna was the mother of Richard and the daughter of Geoffrey fitz Peter, it only means we can say that if Richard's mother was a daughter of Geoffrey fitz Peter then she was not one of the two named in CP, who both lived past 1227.
On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:43:10 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:Richard.
On 21-Aug-22 9:22 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
As for extended usages that were less common, the main one of concern in >>> this forum is nepos for a relative who was not either a grandson or aAn odder extension of meaning that could possibly lead to error is the
nephew. But this is hardly frequent enough to be a necessary
consideration in all cases, and some discussions here in the past have
been unduly anxious about it.
occasional use of 'mater' (mother) for a wet-nurse - for instance, we
know from his own charter dated September 1205 that the parents of
Guillaume II Talvas, count of Ponthieu, were his predecessor Jean I and
the latter's third wife Beatrix ("ego Willelmus, comes Pontivi et
Moustreoli ... Johannes, pater meus, et Beatrix, mater mea"). However,
in a charter dated 2 June 1194 Guillaume had described a woman named
Oda, last in a list of family retainers, as 'my mother' ("Et sciendum
est quod extra communiam pono liberum et quietum Johannem hostiarium, et
Petrum falconarium, et Dodelinum cimentarium, et Robertum ballulium ...
et Odam, matrem meam"). Of course the context here makes it obvious that
Oda was a servant, but that may not always happen.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks once more. For anyone following this, at least one of the most relevant legal cases is summarised in Wrottesley: https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/260/mode/2up Unfortunately this does not get us to the Irish jusiticiar
However, I suppose there is no objection to my interpretation of the 1343 Close Roll https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig05grea/page/15/ as a missing link which seems to make it clear that Richard was the heir of William who had been under thewardship of Philip de Albiniaco for example in 1234 https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig02grea/page/373 and https://archive.org/details/closerollsofrei03grea/page/22
On 21-Aug-22 5:27 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:jusiticiar Richard.
On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:43:10 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 21-Aug-22 9:22 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
As for extended usages that were less common, the main one of concern in >>> this forum is nepos for a relative who was not either a grandson or a >>> nephew. But this is hardly frequent enough to be a necessaryAn odder extension of meaning that could possibly lead to error is the
consideration in all cases, and some discussions here in the past have >>> been unduly anxious about it.
occasional use of 'mater' (mother) for a wet-nurse - for instance, we
know from his own charter dated September 1205 that the parents of
Guillaume II Talvas, count of Ponthieu, were his predecessor Jean I and >> the latter's third wife Beatrix ("ego Willelmus, comes Pontivi et
Moustreoli ... Johannes, pater meus, et Beatrix, mater mea"). However,
in a charter dated 2 June 1194 Guillaume had described a woman named
Oda, last in a list of family retainers, as 'my mother' ("Et sciendum
est quod extra communiam pono liberum et quietum Johannem hostiarium, et >> Petrum falconarium, et Dodelinum cimentarium, et Robertum ballulium ... >> et Odam, matrem meam"). Of course the context here makes it obvious that >> Oda was a servant, but that may not always happen.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thanks once more. For anyone following this, at least one of the most relevant legal cases is summarised in Wrottesley: https://archive.org/details/pedigreesfromple00wrotrich/page/260/mode/2up Unfortunately this does not get us to the Irish
the wardship of Philip de Albiniaco for example in 1234 https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig02grea/page/373 and https://archive.org/details/closerollsofrei03grea/page/22However, I suppose there is no objection to my interpretation of the 1343 Close Roll https://archive.org/details/closerollsofreig05grea/page/15/ as a missing link which seems to make it clear that Richard was the heir of William who had been under
For the purposes of the issue raised in this thread you are under-interpreting the second of these, which clearly states that
Philip's ward Richard was the SON and heir of William ("manerium de Lavinton' fuerit in manu sua cum filio et herede Willelmi").
Peter Stewart
Here is another question for the list going back to the original proposal Douglas Richardson made...his mother) or Beatrice de Say (the other wife of his father)? As he had a lot of half-siblings, this is not just a theoretical question.
Presuming it is more or less certain that Richard de la Rokele was the son of a sister of John fitz Geoffrey, doesn't this still mean that he could be a son of a half sister of John. So he could be grandson of William de Munchensy (the other husband of
It is late in the day, so it is quite possible I've missed something obvious. Can anyone help me see it?
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that we must have more proof, just wanting to register what level of proof we have.
On 22-Aug-22 3:23 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:of his mother) or Beatrice de Say (the other wife of his father)? As he had a lot of half-siblings, this is not just a theoretical question.
Here is another question for the list going back to the original proposal Douglas Richardson made...
Presuming it is more or less certain that Richard de la Rokele was the son of a sister of John fitz Geoffrey, doesn't this still mean that he could be a son of a half sister of John. So he could be grandson of William de Munchensy (the other husband
It is late in the day, so it is quite possible I've missed something obvious. Can anyone help me see it?
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that we must have more proof, just wanting to register what level of proof we have.Whichever way you cut it, the daughter of a higher-status family
evidently married the father of Richard de la Rokele. It is far more
likely that this was the most substantial landholder in the Rokele
family and not a junior collateral of his. William was apparently the
most substantial Rokele in the generation before Richard the Irish justiciar.
Furthermore, Occam's razor may be useful here: by any scenario other
than that Richard was the son and heir of William (named after the
latter's father) under the wardship of Philip d'Aubigny, you would need
to introduce an unrecorded cousin of that unnamed son and heir who was
also fortuitously under the wardship of Philip at the same time or of someone else who never occurs in that capacity during his minority. And
the sole basis for this complicated inheritance is not that Richard is
ever called the heir of William's heir in a medieval document but simply that a local antiquarian of the 18th century implied as much - without citing any authority - in saying he was the son of Richard rather than
of William. I would not give Morant anywhere near that much credit, or
VCH Essex that much comparative discredit, without a firmer basis than a possible misnaming or misidentification.
Apart from the Irish justiciar, the other men named Richard de la Rokele
in the late-12th and early- to mid- 13th century found by Robert Adams
in his study of the family mentioned upthread were tenants in Norfolk at Appleton, Watton, Trowse, Colkirk and Gateley. Did Morant try to link
any of these to the family of William de la Rokele in Wiltshire and
Essex, or did he find yet another Richard who has since disappeared?
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:04:16 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:of his mother) or Beatrice de Say (the other wife of his father)? As he had a lot of half-siblings, this is not just a theoretical question.
On 22-Aug-22 3:23 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another question for the list going back to the original proposal Douglas Richardson made...
Presuming it is more or less certain that Richard de la Rokele was the son of a sister of John fitz Geoffrey, doesn't this still mean that he could be a son of a half sister of John. So he could be grandson of William de Munchensy (the other husband
difference, together with the Patent Roll of 1230 which seems to name the heir of William while he was a minor, and indeed the argument you now add concerning the apparent status of Richard's mother. (There might have been other important Rokele familiesWhichever way you cut it, the daughter of a higher-status family
It is late in the day, so it is quite possible I've missed something obvious. Can anyone help me see it?
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that we must have more proof, just wanting to register what level of proof we have.
evidently married the father of Richard de la Rokele. It is far more
likely that this was the most substantial landholder in the Rokele
family and not a junior collateral of his. William was apparently the
most substantial Rokele in the generation before Richard the Irish
justiciar.
Furthermore, Occam's razor may be useful here: by any scenario other
than that Richard was the son and heir of William (named after the
latter's father) under the wardship of Philip d'Aubigny, you would need
to introduce an unrecorded cousin of that unnamed son and heir who was
also fortuitously under the wardship of Philip at the same time or of
someone else who never occurs in that capacity during his minority. And
the sole basis for this complicated inheritance is not that Richard is
ever called the heir of William's heir in a medieval document but simply
that a local antiquarian of the 18th century implied as much - without
citing any authority - in saying he was the son of Richard rather than
of William. I would not give Morant anywhere near that much credit, or
VCH Essex that much comparative discredit, without a firmer basis than a
possible misnaming or misidentification.
Apart from the Irish justiciar, the other men named Richard de la Rokele
in the late-12th and early- to mid- 13th century found by Robert Adams
in his study of the family mentioned upthread were tenants in Norfolk at
Appleton, Watton, Trowse, Colkirk and Gateley. Did Morant try to link
any of these to the family of William de la Rokele in Wiltshire and
Essex, or did he find yet another Richard who has since disappeared?
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
I agree.
No Morant gave no citation, but he did give an exact death date. Perhaps he just wrote the wrong name, using the son's name, just to give an example of how having an exact document could still easily lead to a basic problem.
Unfortunately I have not found a way to read the Adams book yet, but I can see there were certainly several Rokele familys around.
Just to register a point about my previous reasoning: I did not find any direct reference to Richard de Rokele ever having been a ward to Philip. The indirect reference was something I only spotted when writing the previous post. It think that makes a
On 22-Aug-22 9:41 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:husband of his mother) or Beatrice de Say (the other wife of his father)? As he had a lot of half-siblings, this is not just a theoretical question.
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 12:04:16 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 22-Aug-22 3:23 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is another question for the list going back to the original proposal Douglas Richardson made...
Presuming it is more or less certain that Richard de la Rokele was the son of a sister of John fitz Geoffrey, doesn't this still mean that he could be a son of a half sister of John. So he could be grandson of William de Munchensy (the other
a difference, together with the Patent Roll of 1230 which seems to name the heir of William while he was a minor, and indeed the argument you now add concerning the apparent status of Richard's mother. (There might have been other important RokeleWhichever way you cut it, the daughter of a higher-status family
It is late in the day, so it is quite possible I've missed something obvious. Can anyone help me see it?
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that we must have more proof, just wanting to register what level of proof we have.
evidently married the father of Richard de la Rokele. It is far more
likely that this was the most substantial landholder in the Rokele
family and not a junior collateral of his. William was apparently the
most substantial Rokele in the generation before Richard the Irish
justiciar.
Furthermore, Occam's razor may be useful here: by any scenario other
than that Richard was the son and heir of William (named after the
latter's father) under the wardship of Philip d'Aubigny, you would need >> to introduce an unrecorded cousin of that unnamed son and heir who was
also fortuitously under the wardship of Philip at the same time or of
someone else who never occurs in that capacity during his minority. And >> the sole basis for this complicated inheritance is not that Richard is
ever called the heir of William's heir in a medieval document but simply >> that a local antiquarian of the 18th century implied as much - without
citing any authority - in saying he was the son of Richard rather than
of William. I would not give Morant anywhere near that much credit, or
VCH Essex that much comparative discredit, without a firmer basis than a >> possible misnaming or misidentification.
Apart from the Irish justiciar, the other men named Richard de la Rokele >> in the late-12th and early- to mid- 13th century found by Robert Adams
in his study of the family mentioned upthread were tenants in Norfolk at >> Appleton, Watton, Trowse, Colkirk and Gateley. Did Morant try to link
any of these to the family of William de la Rokele in Wiltshire and
Essex, or did he find yet another Richard who has since disappeared?
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
I agree.
No Morant gave no citation, but he did give an exact death date. Perhaps he just wrote the wrong name, using the son's name, just to give an example of how having an exact document could still easily lead to a basic problem.
Unfortunately I have not found a way to read the Adams book yet, but I can see there were certainly several Rokele familys around.
Just to register a point about my previous reasoning: I did not find any direct reference to Richard de Rokele ever having been a ward to Philip. The indirect reference was something I only spotted when writing the previous post. It think that makes
Robert Adams published a summary of his research in the year after his
book appeared, listing all the Rokeles he had found from the 11th
century to the 15th, which you may find easier to get hold of: 'The
Rokeles: an index for a "Langland" family history' in *The Cambridge Companion to Piers Plowman* (2014). As posted before, he found no other Richards who were equal in status to William de la Rokele and his son
and heir, as the others were sub-tenants in Norfolk.
However, William's grandfather (not father as I mistakenly posted
before) was also named Richard and it may be that Morant confused the
names of individuals across generations and ascribed the name of the justiciar's great-grandfather as that of his father, perhaps assuming
that Richards and Williams alternated in succession. A precise date of
death is not very convincing when evidently no-one else has found a
record of this since Morant.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
For anyone further interested in the Rokele / Piers Plowman connection, I found a 2018 article by Andrew Galloway. It attempts to build further upon the work by Roberts. https://www.academia.edu/39775611/
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 7:05:01 PM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:probably there was only one wife.
For anyone further interested in the Rokele / Piers Plowman connection, I found a 2018 article by Andrew Galloway. It attempts to build further upon the work by Roberts. https://www.academia.edu/39775611/
Dear list
I don't think I've seen anyone mention this before but apparently the wife of Richard de Rokele, justiciar of Ireland, was Mathilde de Columbers. She was also mother of Richard's brother William. Mathilde is also the name of Richard's widow, and so
See Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/cartulariummonasteriisanctijohannisb1/page/n1012 p.384ffmade at the marriage of Mathilde de Columbers and I presume this means Philip the grandfather (number 3 in the line) was father of Mathilde. If anyone sees any error, please say so,
As far as I can see, the grantor Philip must be the last (5th) in that line of Philips and the grant must have been made in the short period between the death of Richard de Rokele (in 1276) and Philip (in 1277). He refers to the grant of his father
Concerning Morant, I'm making a working assumption that the same death date being used in this ESAH list is simply because was taken from Morant when someone made the list up http://esah160.blogspot.com/2015/01/esah-archives-slib920.html
On 23-Aug-22 2:28 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
Concerning Morant, I'm making a working assumption that the same death date being used in this ESAH list is simply because was taken from Morant when someone made the list up http://esah160.blogspot.com/2015/01/esah-archives-slib920.htmlVery probably - it is highly unusual enough to have a precise date of
death for anyone at this socio-economic level in the early 13th century, much less to be told it by an 18th-century antiquarian without citing a source or showing that a Richard de la Rokele held South Ockendon until December 1222. Have you tried to verify this purported tenancy period
for a Richard at or before Michaelmas 1222 in the pipe rolls (as
presumably was done for VCH Essex without producing the same result as Morant had represented)?
Peter Stewart
On 23-Aug-22 6:01 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:probably there was only one wife.
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 7:05:01 PM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
For anyone further interested in the Rokele / Piers Plowman connection, I found a 2018 article by Andrew Galloway. It attempts to build further upon the work by Roberts. https://www.academia.edu/39775611/
Dear list
I don't think I've seen anyone mention this before but apparently the wife of Richard de Rokele, justiciar of Ireland, was Mathilde de Columbers. She was also mother of Richard's brother William. Mathilde is also the name of Richard's widow, and so
made at the marriage of Mathilde de Columbers and I presume this means Philip the grandfather (number 3 in the line) was father of Mathilde. If anyone sees any error, please say so,See Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/cartulariummonasteriisanctijohannisb1/page/n1012 p.384ff
As far as I can see, the grantor Philip must be the last (5th) in that line of Philips and the grant must have been made in the short period between the death of Richard de Rokele (in 1276) and Philip (in 1277). He refers to the grant of his father
Obviously a man's wife cannot be the mother of his own brother - from
this evidence of these charters Richard de la Rokele's wife Matilda de Columbers was the mother of his sons William and (the latter's brother) Philip.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:27:01 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:probably there was only one wife.
On 23-Aug-22 6:01 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 7:05:01 PM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> For anyone further interested in the Rokele / Piers Plowman connection, I found a 2018 article by Andrew Galloway. It attempts to build further upon the work by Roberts. https://www.academia.edu/39775611/
Dear list
I don't think I've seen anyone mention this before but apparently the wife of Richard de Rokele, justiciar of Ireland, was Mathilde de Columbers. She was also mother of Richard's brother William. Mathilde is also the name of Richard's widow, and so
made at the marriage of Mathilde de Columbers and I presume this means Philip the grandfather (number 3 in the line) was father of Mathilde. If anyone sees any error, please say so,
See Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/cartulariummonasteriisanctijohannisb1/page/n1012 p.384ff
As far as I can see, the grantor Philip must be the last (5th) in that line of Philips and the grant must have been made in the short period between the death of Richard de Rokele (in 1276) and Philip (in 1277). He refers to the grant of his father
is the father, because despite my reasoning concerning the timing, a few charters later there is one by a Philip specifically being referred to as the "third", with the "fourth" one as a witness. Could these grants have been made while Richard andObviously a man's wife cannot be the mother of his own brother - from
this evidence of these charters Richard de la Rokele's wife Matilda de
Columbers was the mother of his sons William and (the latter's brother)
Philip.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
My apologies for the typo. Yes Mathilde was mother to Philip and William de Rokele. William happens to be discussed more by Adams and was apparently also involved in Irish administration. I still feel a little uncertain about which Philip de Columbers
On 23-Aug-22 5:56 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 12:27:01 AM UTC+2,
pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 23-Aug-22 6:01 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, August 22, 2022 at 7:05:01 PM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.comObviously a man's wife cannot be the mother of his own brother - from
wrote:
For anyone further interested in the Rokele / Piers Plowman
connection, I found a 2018 article by Andrew Galloway. It attempts
to build further upon the work by Roberts.
https://www.academia.edu/39775611/
Dear list
I don't think I've seen anyone mention this before but apparently
the wife of Richard de Rokele, justiciar of Ireland, was Mathilde de
Columbers. She was also mother of Richard's brother William.
Mathilde is also the name of Richard's widow, and so probably there
was only one wife.
See Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Johannis Baptiste de Colecestria
vol. 2,
https://archive.org/details/cartulariummonasteriisanctijohannisb1/page/n1012 p.384ff
As far as I can see, the grantor Philip must be the last (5th) in
that line of Philips and the grant must have been made in the short
period between the death of Richard de Rokele (in 1276) and Philip
(in 1277). He refers to the grant of his father made at the marriage
of Mathilde de Columbers and I presume this means Philip the
grandfather (number 3 in the line) was father of Mathilde. If anyone
sees any error, please say so,
this evidence of these charters Richard de la Rokele's wife Matilda de
Columbers was the mother of his sons William and (the latter's brother)
Philip.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
My apologies for the typo. Yes Mathilde was mother to Philip and
William de Rokele. William happens to be discussed more by Adams and
was apparently also involved in Irish administration. I still feel a
little uncertain about which Philip de Columbers is the father,
because despite my reasoning concerning the timing, a few charters
later there is one by a Philip specifically being referred to as the
"third", with the "fourth" one as a witness. Could these grants have
been made while Richard and Mathilde were still alive?
Philip III de Columbers was the father of Richard de la Rokele's wife
Matilda - Philip III inherited by 1215 and died in 1262, while Richard
de la Rokele was married to Matilda by 1245 (their elder son Philip was
aged 30 or more in December 1276). The man calling himself "ego
Philippus de Columbariis tertius" was evidently the grandson of Philip
III, whom the monks of Colchester counted for some reason on a different basis from the numbering V otherwise ascribed to him.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 87:19:21 |
| Calls: | 6,658 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,333,879 |