On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote:

How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?

I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually Miles’

Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong evidence

that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers these
were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas de

Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told that

he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral branches,
and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice by
comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions. Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "Devine Goth"
& may be more of a title than an actual name.
Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient Crispins
but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by his
descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote:

How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?

I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually Miles’

Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong evidence

that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers these
were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas de

Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told that

he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral branches,
and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote:

How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?

I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually Miles’

Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong evidence

that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers these
were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas de

Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told that

he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral branches,
and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice by

comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions.

Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "Devine

Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin
family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was
castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was
a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the
Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of
Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady
named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of
Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between
Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the
first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child
oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography
("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote: >>> How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?
I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually Miles�

�� Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong

evidence that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers
these were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas

de Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told

that he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral
branches, and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice by

comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions.

Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "Devine

Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was
a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the
Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of
Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between
Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the
first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography ("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

THANK YOU - for your reply.
If I have this right, Ansgot was a Norseman who settled in Normandy under Rollo & was the father of Herluin (Knight of the Brionne family). Herluin later became the first Abbot of Le Bec (where the money was better plus there was a guaranteed trip to
heaven). Gilbert Crispin (later Abbott) was placed into Herluin's monastic care & later became his Herluin's biographer. No family connection only monastic!
Are you aware of any other info on Ansgot & any other family members in addition to Herluin? Of course I will endeavour to find additional understanding of the perspectives laid out in Gilbert's biography which is a limited perspective of only one family
member (Herluin son of Ansgot/Angot).
Cliff Augot

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12-Feb-23 9:52 AM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote: >>>>> How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?

I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually Miles�

�� Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong

evidence that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers
these were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas

de Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told

that he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral
branches, and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice by

comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions. >>> Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "Devine
Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin
family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was
castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was
a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the
Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of
Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady
named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of
Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between
Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the
first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child
oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography
("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no
suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

THANK YOU - for your reply.
If I have this right, Ansgot was a Norseman who settled in Normandy under Rollo & was the father of Herluin (Knight of the Brionne family).

Not quite - I misstated in saying that Ansgot himself was described as Norseman, I should have said he was described as descended from Norsemen settled under Rollo ("A Danis qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater eius originem duxit").

Herluin was a household knight of Gilbert of Brionne, but he still had
the service of 20 knights of his own after quitting his vassalage to
Gilbert. Herluin and his brothers held property at Cernay (from their
mother's dowry), Bonneville, Le Petit-Quevilly and Surcy (probably from
their paternal inheritance).

Herluin later became the first Abbot of Le Bec (where the money was better plus there was a guaranteed trip to heaven).

Herluin was unhappy with the rewards of his service to Gilbert but this
was just a part of his dissatisfaction with worldly life: he certainly
did not become a monk in order to get more money. He remained a knight
at first, and was mocked for riding on an ass instead of a proper warhorse.

Gilbert Crispin (later Abbott) was placed into Herluin's monastic care
& later became his Herluin's biographer. No family connection only monastic!

Are you aware of any other info on Ansgot & any other family members in addition to Herluin?

He had brothers but I don't recall any descendants of theirs - however,
my memory is a poor guide, as with the wrong information about Ansgot.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 9:38:59 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 12-Feb-23 9:52 AM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote: >>>>> How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?
I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually

Miles’ Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong

evidence that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers
these were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas

de Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told

that he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral
branches, and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice

by comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions.

Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "

Devine Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin >> family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was
castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was >> a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the
Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of
Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady >> named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of
Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between
Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the
first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child >> oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography >> ("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no
suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

THANK YOU - for your reply.
If I have this right, Ansgot was a Norseman who settled in Normandy under Rollo & was the father of Herluin (Knight of the Brionne family).

Not quite - I misstated in saying that Ansgot himself was described as Norseman, I should have said he was described as descended from Norsemen settled under Rollo ("A Danis qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater eius originem duxit").

Herluin was a household knight of Gilbert of Brionne, but he still had
the service of 20 knights of his own after quitting his vassalage to Gilbert. Herluin and his brothers held property at Cernay (from their mother's dowry), Bonneville, Le Petit-Quevilly and Surcy (probably from their paternal inheritance).

Herluin later became the first Abbot of Le Bec (where the money was better plus there was a guaranteed trip to heaven).

Herluin was unhappy with the rewards of his service to Gilbert but this
was just a part of his dissatisfaction with worldly life: he certainly
did not become a monk in order to get more money. He remained a knight
at first, and was mocked for riding on an ass instead of a proper warhorse. Gilbert Crispin (later Abbott) was placed into Herluin's monastic care
& later became his Herluin's biographer. No family connection only monastic!

Are you aware of any other info on Ansgot & any other family members in addition to Herluin?

He had brothers but I don't recall any descendants of theirs - however,
my memory is a poor guide, as with the wrong information about Ansgot.
Peter Stewart

Hi Peter;
1. Yes - I had assumed that Ansgot was a descendant of a Norman based on the general dates noted above & did not mean to confuse the matter.
2. My comment about Herluin's financial desires in becoming a Monk was a joke (probably in poor taste), knowing that Monks generally live in rather impoverished conditions particularly in historic times. Vows of poverty, chastity or even silence were
taken quite seriously. In reality, it is clear that to take on such a role he was probably genuinely devoted to his religious ideals.
3. It would seem that the family/descendants of Ansgot were quite well-to-do with such landholdings over several different regions of Normandy.
You have provided some very valuable information for me to ponder & I greatly appreciate the assistance.
Cliff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 5:08:59 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 12-Feb-23 9:52 AM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote: >>>>> How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?
I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually

Miles’ Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong

evidence that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers
these were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas

de Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told

that he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral
branches, and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice

by comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions.

Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "

Devine Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin >> family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was
castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was >> a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the
Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of
Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady >> named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of
Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between
Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the
first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child >> oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography >> ("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no
suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

THANK YOU - for your reply.
If I have this right, Ansgot was a Norseman who settled in Normandy under Rollo & was the father of Herluin (Knight of the Brionne family).

Not quite - I misstated in saying that Ansgot himself was described as Norseman, I should have said he was described as descended from Norsemen settled under Rollo ("A Danis qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater eius originem duxit").

Herluin was a household knight of Gilbert of Brionne, but he still had
the service of 20 knights of his own after quitting his vassalage to Gilbert. Herluin and his brothers held property at Cernay (from their mother's dowry), Bonneville, Le Petit-Quevilly and Surcy (probably from their paternal inheritance).

Herluin later became the first Abbot of Le Bec (where the money was better plus there was a guaranteed trip to heaven).

Herluin was unhappy with the rewards of his service to Gilbert but this
was just a part of his dissatisfaction with worldly life: he certainly
did not become a monk in order to get more money. He remained a knight
at first, and was mocked for riding on an ass instead of a proper warhorse. Gilbert Crispin (later Abbott) was placed into Herluin's monastic care
& later became his Herluin's biographer. No family connection only monastic!

Are you aware of any other info on Ansgot & any other family members in addition to Herluin?

He had brothers but I don't recall any descendants of theirs - however,
my memory is a poor guide, as with the wrong information about Ansgot.

Took a quick look at Van Houts' edition, where Herluin appears vol. 2, p. 60 & seq. Within a long biography of the man are the following details:

"At about this time, in the year of the Lord 1034, Abbot Herluin, then in his fortieth year of age, forsook the secular life. . . ."

"His father descended from the Danes, who had first occupied Normandy. His mother was closely related to the counts of Morini, who nowadays are called the Flemings. His name was Ansgot; hers was Héloïse."

"To his dominion and service the lord himself handed over whatever Herluin's brothers had of their father's right, they were born to the same rank and were his peers. But becasue he had shown himself to be more worthy and magnanimous in true nobility
than his brothers, it was not considered wrong or harmful that the right be withdrawn from them." (The brothers are not named here, but in a footnote van Houts quotes a Le Bec pancarte naming "Odo et Rogerius fratres domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis. . .
.")

"His noble mother joined im there in similar service on God's account, giving all the estates she had to God, . . ."

I find nothing further about the brothers or any descendants, but given they were stripped of their paternal inheritance and their mother gave away hers, they may have been left at a societal status below that meriting mention.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12-Feb-23 4:15 PM, taf wrote:

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 5:08:59 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 12-Feb-23 9:52 AM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote: >>>>>>> How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?

I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually

Miles’ Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong

evidence that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers
these were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas

de Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told

that he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral
branches, and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice

by comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions.

Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "

Devine Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin >>>> family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was
castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was >>>> a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the
Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of
Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady >>>> named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of
Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between
Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the
first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child >>>> oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography >>>> ("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no >>>> suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

THANK YOU - for your reply.
If I have this right, Ansgot was a Norseman who settled in Normandy under Rollo & was the father of Herluin (Knight of the Brionne family).

Not quite - I misstated in saying that Ansgot himself was described as
Norseman, I should have said he was described as descended from Norsemen
settled under Rollo ("A Danis qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater eius
originem duxit").

Herluin was a household knight of Gilbert of Brionne, but he still had
the service of 20 knights of his own after quitting his vassalage to
Gilbert. Herluin and his brothers held property at Cernay (from their
mother's dowry), Bonneville, Le Petit-Quevilly and Surcy (probably from
their paternal inheritance).

Herluin later became the first Abbot of Le Bec (where the money was better plus there was a guaranteed trip to heaven).

Herluin was unhappy with the rewards of his service to Gilbert but this
was just a part of his dissatisfaction with worldly life: he certainly
did not become a monk in order to get more money. He remained a knight
at first, and was mocked for riding on an ass instead of a proper warhorse. >> Gilbert Crispin (later Abbott) was placed into Herluin's monastic care
& later became his Herluin's biographer. No family connection only monastic! >>> Are you aware of any other info on Ansgot & any other family members in addition to Herluin?
He had brothers but I don't recall any descendants of theirs - however,
my memory is a poor guide, as with the wrong information about Ansgot.

Took a quick look at Van Houts' edition, where Herluin appears vol. 2, p. 60 & seq. Within a long biography of the man are the following details:

"At about this time, in the year of the Lord 1034, Abbot Herluin, then in his fortieth year of age, forsook the secular life. . . ."

"His father descended from the Danes, who had first occupied Normandy. His mother was closely related to the counts of Morini, who nowadays are called the Flemings. His name was Ansgot; hers was Héloïse."

"To his dominion and service the lord himself handed over whatever Herluin's brothers had of their father's right, they were born to the same rank and were his peers. But becasue he had shown himself to be more worthy and magnanimous in true nobility

than his brothers, it was not considered wrong or harmful that the right be withdrawn from them." (The brothers are not named here, but in a footnote van Houts quotes a Le Bec pancarte naming "Odo et Rogerius fratres domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis. . .
.")

"His noble mother joined im there in similar service on God's account, giving all the estates she had to God, . . ."

I find nothing further about the brothers or any descendants, but given they were stripped of their paternal inheritance and their mother gave away hers, they may have been left at a societal status below that meriting mention.

The brothers are both entered in the necrology of Le Bec, see here pp.
141, 142 and 144 in the extracts recorded by Jacques Jouvelin in the
17th century: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90683667/f79.item -
Roger on 13 January ("Rogerius frater D[omni]. Herluini abbatis") and
Odo on 19 March ("Odo frater D. Herluini abbatis"). Apart from Herluin's
father on 14 February ("Ansgotus pater D. Herluini abbatis") and his
mother on 6 August ("Helois mater D. Herluini abbatis"), no other
relatives are entered. As mentioned before, I don't recall any evidence
that there were descendants of either brother.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 12-Feb-23 2:49 PM, Cliff Augot wrote:

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 9:38:59 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 12-Feb-23 9:52 AM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote: >>>>>>> How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?

I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually

Miles’ Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong

evidence that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers
these were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that Nicholas

de Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are told

that he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral
branches, and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three
2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet, and

that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete novice

by comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions.

Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "

Devine Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin >>>> family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was
castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was >>>> a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the
Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of
Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady >>>> named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of
Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between
Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the
first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child >>>> oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography >>>> ("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no >>>> suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

THANK YOU - for your reply.
If I have this right, Ansgot was a Norseman who settled in Normandy under Rollo & was the father of Herluin (Knight of the Brionne family).

Not quite - I misstated in saying that Ansgot himself was described as
Norseman, I should have said he was described as descended from Norsemen
settled under Rollo ("A Danis qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater eius
originem duxit").

Herluin was a household knight of Gilbert of Brionne, but he still had
the service of 20 knights of his own after quitting his vassalage to
Gilbert. Herluin and his brothers held property at Cernay (from their
mother's dowry), Bonneville, Le Petit-Quevilly and Surcy (probably from
their paternal inheritance).

Herluin later became the first Abbot of Le Bec (where the money was better plus there was a guaranteed trip to heaven).

Herluin was unhappy with the rewards of his service to Gilbert but this
was just a part of his dissatisfaction with worldly life: he certainly
did not become a monk in order to get more money. He remained a knight
at first, and was mocked for riding on an ass instead of a proper warhorse. >> Gilbert Crispin (later Abbott) was placed into Herluin's monastic care
& later became his Herluin's biographer. No family connection only monastic! >>> Are you aware of any other info on Ansgot & any other family members in addition to Herluin?
He had brothers but I don't recall any descendants of theirs - however,
my memory is a poor guide, as with the wrong information about Ansgot.
Peter Stewart

Hi Peter;
1. Yes - I had assumed that Ansgot was a descendant of a Norman based on the general dates noted above & did not mean to confuse the matter.
2. My comment about Herluin's financial desires in becoming a Monk was a joke (probably in poor taste), knowing that Monks generally live in rather impoverished conditions particularly in historic times. Vows of poverty, chastity or even silence were

taken quite seriously. In reality, it is clear that to take on such a role he was probably genuinely devoted to his religious ideals.

3. It would seem that the family/descendants of Ansgot were quite well-to-do with such landholdings over several different regions of Normandy.
You have provided some very valuable information for me to ponder & I greatly appreciate the assistance.

There were other Normans named Ansgot, one of whom Orderic said was
related to Roger Hispanicus of Tosny ("Ansgotus Normannus ... Rogerii
Toenitis qui Hispanicus uocabatur cognatus erat"). At least two, perhaps
three, different men of this name occur in Domesday book. There was also
a Norman in Italy under Roger I of Hauteville named Ansgot (or Arisgot)
of Pucheuil.

And there were other Herluins for that matter, apparently unrelated to
the first abbot of Le Bec, such as the viscount of Conteville who
married William the Conqueror's mother Arleva.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 2:48:25 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 12-Feb-23 2:49 PM, Cliff Augot wrote:

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 9:38:59 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 12-Feb-23 9:52 AM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 12:00:24 AM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Feb-23 1:43 PM, cau...@yahoo.ca wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-3:30, Peter Stewart wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:47:55 AM UTC+11, Nick Wormley wrote:

How much do you know about Wiger beyond the words ("Wigerus homo Nicholai")?

I know that Wiger was of relatively modest status - the charter was subscribed by Nicolas along with duke William, but only witnessed by Wiger who was named after a chaplain. Ralph Crispin is named after Wiger, again witnessing but not

subscribing.

I have just shown that Hugh FitzMilo was listed in a charter of donations to Bec in the early 1080s as “a man of Milo”, (section headed “Milo Crispin concedes benefactions of his men”). but it is pretty definite that Hugh was actually

Miles’ Crispin’s son. Liegemen were often relatives.

I'm afraid you have not shown this at all, but only assumed it. The charter says: "Et quod Milo Crispinus dedit eidem monasterio et, ipso concedente, homines eius Hugo filius Milonis et Ricardus filius Rainfridi". This wording is very strong

evidence that Hugo was not the son of Milo Crispin, but rather of a namesake of his. If Crispin was a family surname, Hugo would have been called by it too or at least described as "filius eius". When sons made donations in the lifetime of their fathers
these were almost invariably given jointly with their fathers rather than just by concession of their fathers in the capacity of overlords.

To say that the co-incidence of two unrelated men having the same byname is far more likely than this Ralph Crispin being a blood relative of the first Gilbert Crispin’s family is just guessing. It would equally seem a coincidence that

Nicholas de Bacqueville had a brother-in-law named Crispin and an unrelated vassal also called Crispin. Either version is possible and I feel it is wrong to be dogmatic from this small amount of (original?) material.

Chronology has to be taken into account, along with other circumstantial evidence. We are told that Gilbert I was the originator of the surname Crispin in his family because he acquired this as a byname from his spiky hair as a child. We are

told that he had three sons, Gilbet, William and Robert. If a witness in the 1040s-1060s called Crispin took this name from relationship to Gilbert, it could only be as his son - personal bynames that became family surnames did not transfer to collateral
branches, and a grandson would have been too young. In that case you would need to explain:

1. Why we are told of three sons when there were more than three >>>>>> 2. Why a nephew of Nicolas de Bacqueville was not considered of sufficient status to subscribe along with him but only to witness after a chaplain and a liegeman

If we decide that this witness Ralph Crispin cannot have been related to Nicholas de Bacqueville’s sister Gunnor d’Annou, then if anything, I think that gives stronger cause to wonder if the first Crispin wife was instead Gunnor d’Anet,

and that these two ladies have in the past been confounded.

I can't follow the reasoning behind this statement - how does a man's being unrelated to a woman affect her likely identity in this way?

Peter Stewart

Hello everyone - Today I stumbled across your chat & was intrigued by the discussion. I was very impressed by the level of your knowledge about the various characters in the Crispin family in those early days. I realize that I am a complete

novice by comparison & hope that my question is not too far afield from your discussions.

Some time ago I came across "Angot (Ansgoth) Crespin - Seigneur du Bec" & was quite excited about finding this person with what I believe is the earliest reference to ANGOT name in France which may simply be a reference to Crispin as being a "

Devine Goth" & may be more of a title than an actual name.

Anyway my ancestral line lies within Normandy & my ancestral family name is "Angot" which locally has been changed to "Augot". There are several vague online references indicating that the Angot Family line is directly associated to the ancient

Crispins but I have not found any other direct references that define this connection in any specific way. Only this reference to Crispin du Bec & the variations of the Angot name used in listing his name. The Angot name does not appear to be adopted by
his descendants but I am wondering if any of you may have seen any point where this family line may have spun off from the Crispin Family?

I'm afraid the alleged genealogical connection of Ansgot to the Crespin >>>> family is a modern fiction.

The earliest recorded ancestor of the Crespins is Gilbert I, who was >>>> castellan of Tillières in the early 11th century. His wife's mother was
a niece of Gilbert of Brionne (murdered in 1040/41, ancestor of the >>>> Clare family), one of whose household knights was Herluin the son of >>>> Ansgot (described a Norseman settled in Normandy under Rollo) by a lady >>>> named Helois (supposedly, but implausibly, related to the rulers of >>>> Flanders). That's it: no documented blood relationship at all between >>>> Ansgot and the Crespins.

Herluin was not well-enough rewarded by Gilbert of Brionne for his
service and gave up the career of arms to become a monk. He was the >>>> first abbot of Le Bec. Gilbert I Crespin's namesake grandson was a child
oblate under him and later (as abbot of Westminster) wrote his biography
("Vita domni Herluini abbatis Beccensis"). Somehow this has been
parlayed by hopeful genealogists into a family history but there is no >>>> suggestion of that in the text.

Peter Stewart

THANK YOU - for your reply.
If I have this right, Ansgot was a Norseman who settled in Normandy under Rollo & was the father of Herluin (Knight of the Brionne family).

Not quite - I misstated in saying that Ansgot himself was described as
Norseman, I should have said he was described as descended from Norsemen >> settled under Rollo ("A Danis qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater eius >> originem duxit").

Herluin was a household knight of Gilbert of Brionne, but he still had
the service of 20 knights of his own after quitting his vassalage to
Gilbert. Herluin and his brothers held property at Cernay (from their
mother's dowry), Bonneville, Le Petit-Quevilly and Surcy (probably from >> their paternal inheritance).

Herluin later became the first Abbot of Le Bec (where the money was better plus there was a guaranteed trip to heaven).

Herluin was unhappy with the rewards of his service to Gilbert but this >> was just a part of his dissatisfaction with worldly life: he certainly
did not become a monk in order to get more money. He remained a knight
at first, and was mocked for riding on an ass instead of a proper warhorse.
Gilbert Crispin (later Abbott) was placed into Herluin's monastic care
& later became his Herluin's biographer. No family connection only monastic!

Are you aware of any other info on Ansgot & any other family members in addition to Herluin?

He had brothers but I don't recall any descendants of theirs - however, >> my memory is a poor guide, as with the wrong information about Ansgot.
Peter Stewart

Hi Peter;
1. Yes - I had assumed that Ansgot was a descendant of a Norman based on the general dates noted above & did not mean to confuse the matter.
2. My comment about Herluin's financial desires in becoming a Monk was a joke (probably in poor taste), knowing that Monks generally live in rather impoverished conditions particularly in historic times. Vows of poverty, chastity or even silence were

taken quite seriously. In reality, it is clear that to take on such a role he was probably genuinely devoted to his religious ideals.

3. It would seem that the family/descendants of Ansgot were quite well-to-do with such landholdings over several different regions of Normandy.
You have provided some very valuable information for me to ponder & I greatly appreciate the assistance.

There were other Normans named Ansgot, one of whom Orderic said was
related to Roger Hispanicus of Tosny ("Ansgotus Normannus ... Rogerii Toenitis qui Hispanicus uocabatur cognatus erat"). At least two, perhaps three, different men of this name occur in Domesday book. There was also
a Norman in Italy under Roger I of Hauteville named Ansgot (or Arisgot)
of Pucheuil.

And there were other Herluins for that matter, apparently unrelated to
the first abbot of Le Bec, such as the viscount of Conteville who
married William the Conqueror's mother Arleva.
Peter Stewart

I took a quick look at a few of the on-line sources associated with the events, people, books, articles, authors & other items that you have mentioned in your responses. There is obviously a great deal I have to learn but I am very grateful for your
input.
I must confess that I am feeling somewhat guilty about straying from the primary subject of the conversation.
It will take some time for me to digest the info that you have already provided but I do look forward to the effort. I should note that I am certainly open to receiving any additional leads if you become aware of anything else related to the possible
beginnings of the Ansgot/Angot/Ango/.... Family.
Thank you again,
Cliff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 8:30:10 AM UTC-8, Cliff Augot wrote:

I must confess that I am feeling somewhat guilty about straying from the primary subject of the conversation.

No need to feel guilty. A little bit of subject drift is normal - indeed, it can be some of the most productive, as discussion flows with the knowledge of the contributors rather than simply question-response-end. Were a new thread started every time
things drift a little, related discussion can become disjointed. Just please don't shift to an entirely unrelated subject in the same thread, as sometimes happens when new contributors simply respond to an existing thread to initiate a new discussion of
something else.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)