On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 12:13:50 PM UTC+2, Peter Howarth wrote:
On Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 18:54:25 UTC+1, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure if anyone else noticed this yet. Seems fun to me.
1. Historian David Crouch in his fine book on Tournaments notes how documents from of the reign of Henry I show how Osbert de Arden of Kingsbury was clearly involved in the European big money sport of the time, and had a written agreement with his
squire, one Thurkil Fundu of Ashbrook. (Probably a relative, given that Thurkil is the name of the ancestor of the Ardens.)
David Crouch (2005) ''Tournament'', pp. 47-49 & 165. https://books.google.be/books?redir_esc=y&id=Oo0aAAAAYAAJ
2. Dugdale long ago found evidence that Osbert's eventual grandson in law Peter of Bracebridge, who took over the Kingsbury estate, left behind evidence of his own interest in tournaments, and also had a deal with a squire ... one William son of
Fundus, of Esbroc.
Dugdale, ''Antiquities of Warwickshire'', 2nd ed. vol. 2, p.1058 https://books.google.be/books?id=PhBaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1058
A very interesting connection which I hadn't seen before. Many thanks!
(A small typo: David Crouch's translation of the agreement between Osbert de Arden and Thurkil Fundu is on page 163, not 165.)
Peter Howarth
Thank you Peter. I wonder if anyone happens to know how Professor Crouch came to conclude (p.41) that Siward de Arden died in 1139. It is a similar estimate to the ones others make but why choose that exact year? It implies he had a specific document in
mind?
FWIW I've been reviewing Crouch's proposal, accepted for example by Ann Williams, that Osbert de Arden of Kingsbury, the tourneyer, was actually the oldest son of Siward de Arden, and not his brother, which was the traditional proposal and also based
upon the legal claims of Osbert's own family. Siward certainly had a son Osbert, as seen in the Kenilworth cartulary, but it was apparently this document which indicated that Osbert was not just one of those younger brothers who witnesses a few charters
and then disappears from history, but that he was instead the "senior" brother:
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/E3/E13no76/aE13no76fronts/IMG_0137.htm .
I suppose another fact supporting Crouch is that the legal case in Curia Regis rolls v, clearly contains some kind of mistake because Osbert's family said that his father was still alive when Henry I died. That would match Siward, but not Turchil, and it
is plain wrong for Kingsbury. Maybe they just felt the need to make a statement about who was holding the land when Henry I died, typical in inheritance disputes after the anarchy. Actually the Pipe Roll shows Siward holding Turchil's lands, but Osbert
himself was already holding Kingsbury in 1130 and he might not have lived much longer. Osbert II seems to have replaced his father by the 1140s.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015019101917&view=1up&seq=49&skin=2021&q1=%22fitz%20walter%22
Maybe the two Osberts died relatively young because of their interest in tournaments!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)