https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/B-_K223d440

Greetings,

I am curious if there is any currently held consensus on whether Margaret (b. c. 1080/90 - ), wife of William I de Mandeville (d. before 1130), daughter of Eudo Dapifer (d. March 1, 1120, Colchester), Steward of William I, II and Henry I, is also the daughter of his wife Rose fitz Richard de Clare (d. January 7, 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy). I have seen a variety of positions taken including:

(1) There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo;
(2) Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose; and
(3) Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose.

In addition, is there a consensus or conclusive evidence that Geoffrey I de Mandeville (d. September 1144) is the son of the aforementioned Margaret?

I'd be grateful for any contemporary insight into this conundrum. Many thanks.

Cheers,
Pete

-----------

Hi Pete,

See K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants some Corrigenda, p. 1
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~prosop/domesday-descendants-corrigenda.pdf

which says that Margaret was daughter of Eudo Dapifer and Rohais de Clare.

Regards,
John

-----------

Hi John,

Many thanks for the reply. I am familiar with what Keats-Rohan states regarding the parentage of Margaret, wife of William I de Mandeville. However, I continue to have difficulty reconciling it with, for example, the following:

[1] 'The Complete Peerage, (1926), Vol. V, edited by Gibbs & Doubleday, pp. 113-114:

"Geoffrey de Mandeville of Great Waltham [etc.], ... s. and h. of William de Mandeville, of the same (who d. in or just before 1130), by (it is said, but probably erroneously) Margaret, da. and h. of Eoun de Rie, Dapifer of Colchester, Essex."

[2] 'Notes and Queries', (Jan-Jun, 1880), 6th series, vol. I, pp. 6-7:

"This chartulary [St. John's Abbey, Colchester] also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Roses never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's [click link below for quoted charter].

This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of S. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I.: -

"Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II, was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit cronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Giblerto ecclesiam, &c." (source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HmcEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22eudo%22+%22dapifer%22+%22gilbert%22&source=bl&ots=GPAlMTFzeb&sig=fdfJQxNDr3B2XY98m3xP_yid7Z0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI_Nzs0KKRyAIVi2s-Ch167gaM#v=onepage&q=%22eudo%22%20%22dapifer%22%20%22gilbert%22&f=false) ..." Edmond Chester Waters.

[3] Lastly, I've heard the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the son of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.

I'd be grateful for any insight or clarifications with respect to the contradictions above. Many thanks.

Cheers,

Pete

-----------

Chester Waters was wrong, Geoffrey de Mandeville was recognised as heir to Eudo's estates and the dapiferate in Normandy, and all his estates in England - see the charter of Matilda, pp. 201-102 no. 275, https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl03grea#page/100/mode/2up:

"Et do ei [comiti Gaufredo Essexe] totam terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Normannia et dapiferatum ipsius ... Et si dominus meus Comes Andegaviae et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet pro dominiis et terris quas habet eschaetis et pro servicio militum quod habet totam terram quae fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus et mortuus".

In the same charter Matilda made a grant to Geoffrey's maternal half-brother William fitz Otuel, "Et praeter hoc dedi Willelmo filio Otvel fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi c libratas terrae de terris escaetis tenendis de me et de haeredibus meis in feudo et haereditate pro servicio sue et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi."

Peter Stewart

------------

I should have added that the "positive proof" Chester Waters relied on is false - see p. 126 no. 1096*,
https://archive.org/stream/regestaregumangl02davi#page/126/mode/2up

Peter Stewart

-----------

Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al,

Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions?

[1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo

[Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?]

[2] Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose

[Position taken - I have discovered no positive evidence, and no evidence has been made available to me, to establish that Margaret was the daughter of Rose de Clare. However, I have not identified any evidence that she is not. The reference to the "movent clause" by Chester Waters does not seem particularly meaningful to me as I have seen a number of said clauses which were silent on known living children. Unless Margaret was deceased at the date of the charter, such absence does not seem meaningful. Does anyone else have any knowledge of why Rose cannot be, or is not likely to, be Margaret's mother?]

[3] Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose

[Position taken - this is not an unreasonable position to take in that Margaret was the dau. of Eudo Dapifer (inferred in #1 above) and Rose de Clare was Eudo's only known wife. However, conclusive evidence that Rose is Margaret's mother is lacking.]

Query:

My other comment in my initial post was incorrect, I mean to say, I've read the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife Rose de Vere would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. In particular, that Geoffrey de Mandeville and Rose de Vere would be related in the 3rd degree by common descent from Richard de Brionne and Rose de Giffard under Hollister's pedigree chart, for example.

I would appreciate any insight on the items above. Thank you.

Cheers,

Pete

------------

On 2/05/2016 7:02 AM, Peter G. M. Dale via wrote:
> Greetings Peter, Patricia, et al,
>> Thank you for your comments and clarifications. From my initial post is it fair to say that I can take the following positions?
>> [1] There is no conclusive evidence that Margaret was the daughter of Eudo
>> [Position taken - Eudo can be inferred as Margaret's father from the 2nd Charter of the Empress (this is based on the assumption that Geoffrey II de Mandeville and William fitz Otuel are brothers via their mother Margaret dau. of Eudo). Is there any conclusive evidence that Margaret is the dau. of Eudo, i.e. charter evidence?]

It is a particularly strong - I would say conclusive - inference from Matilda's charter that Geoffrey's mother was the daughter and heiress of Eudo - note that the empress stated "Et haec reddo ei ut rectum suum ut habeat et teneat haereditabiliter" regarding the Norman estates and dapiferate, and "quia hoc est rectum suum" regarding the English inheritance.

>> [2] Margaret was the daughter of Eudo but not the daughter of his wife Rose
>> [Position taken - I have discovered no positive evidence, and no evidence has been made available to me, to establish that Margaret was the daughter of Rose de Clare. However, I have not identified any evidence that she is not. The reference to the "movent clause" by Chester Waters does not seem particularly meaningful to me as I have seen a number of said clauses which were silent on known living children. Unless Margaret was deceased at the date of the charter, such absence does not seem meaningful. Does anyone else have any knowledge of why Rose cannot be, or is not likely to, be Margaret's mother?]
>> [3] Margaret was the daughter of both Eudo and his wife Rose
>> [Position taken - this is not an unreasonable position to take in that Margaret was the dau. of Eudo Dapifer (inferred in #1 above) and Rose de Clare was Eudo's only known wife. However, conclusive evidence that Rose is Margaret's mother is lacking.]

You would be hard-pressed to find an explicit source for the maternity of almost any woman in this era - even with the daughters of kings we often assume that the only known wife was the mother. Granted we are more likely to know of kings' marriages than those of dapifers, but nonetheless Occam's razor applies.

>> Query:
>> My other comment in my initial post was incorrect, I mean to say, I've read the argument that if Geoffrey II de Mandeville was the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, he and his wife Rose de Vere would be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. In particular, that Geoffrey de Mandeville and Rose de Vere would be related in the 3rd degree by common descent from Richard de Brionne and Rose de Giffard under Hollister's pedigree chart, for example.
>>
Are you suggesting that this consanguinity was too close to be dispensed, or just that a record of dispensation is lacking?

Peter Stewart

--------------

I should have added that Round disagreed with this - he noted "The clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship existed, but it was probably collateral, instead of lineal."

The only source we have (albeit less than fully reliable) makes the relationship direct through Eudo's daughter Margaret. Round's probability contradicting this was based on the estates of Eudo escheating to the Crown at his death - but why this would happen despite a collateral rather than direct heir having rights to the inheritance he did not discuss. Henry I was not the most scrupulous legalist of the age. Evidently Geoffrey's mother was already dead, or at least not able to carry this great power to her second husband Otuel.

Peter Stewart

------------

It was not as simple as my last sentence above. The matter was discussed at length by Warren Hollister in 'The misfortunes of the Mandevilles', *History* 58 (1973), reprinted in his collected essays *Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World* (1986) - regarding the descent of Geoffrey from Eudo through Margaret, Hollister concluded (in note 31) "The passage [in Tintern abbey's Genealogia fundatoris: 'Rohesia ... renupta Eudoni, dapifero ... Margareta filia eorum nupta fuit Willielmo de Mandevill, et fuit mater Gaufridi comitis Essexiae et jure matris, Normanniae dapifer'] was known to Round but rejected by him (and by the editors of *Complete Peerage*, V, 114) on the grounds that Eudo's lands did not pass directly to Geoffrey de Mandeville but were in Henry I's hands in 1130. This can hardly stand as an objection when one recalls that three former Mandeville manors were also in royal hands, and that Geoffrey's rights were in conflict with those of [his maternal half-brother] William fitz Othuer."

Eudo died in Normandy in February 1120, allegedly after being blind for the past 15 years, and Otuel drowned in the White Ship disaster on 25 November of the same year. The history of Mandeville holdings as well as those of Eudo is too complicated to detail here, but it is worth reading Hollister's article as a corrective to Round and CP over this.

Peter Stewart

----------

Hi Peter,

Many thanks for the informed & thoughtful reply. I respond as follows:

[1]. As per consanguinity, I am not familiar enough with the subject, save for the basic and changing prohibitions, to know whether a relationship in the 3rd degree was likely to be ignored or readily accommodated with dispensation or, alternatively, whether the granting of a technically required dispensation was to be expected in a case like this but simply absent from the surviving record. I, generally, am loathe to rely on missing evidence to satisfy genealogical challenges. However, as I said earlier, I simply do not know enough about this topic to make any determinations.

[2]. I just re-read the Hollister article on the Mandeville family you kindly quoted. Are you in agreement with his conclusions? The arguments, while I understand the logic and import, are too advanced for me to really hazard a guess as per who is correct - Round v Hollister.

Again, I'm grateful for you & others taking the time to review & opine on my comments & queries.

Cheers,

Pete

---------

For what it's worth, I think Hollister has the better of this argument - Round evidently supposed that inheritance was secure at the time of Eudo's death, but careful work has been done of this question since he wrote and the answer is "not so much". It has calculated that inheritance within families occurred within the frequency range of 60-80% through the reign of Henry I. We know that William de Mandeville had fallen from favour, and his father-in-law Eudo may have been incapacitated in the last two decades of his life. I wouldn't think it surprising if William's underage son Geoffrey fell into the unlucky 20-40% until Matilda decided to give him all she could of his rights - that is, lands and the dapiferate in Normandy that were under her (or officially her husband's) control, and the estates in England if Geoffrey could obtain them.

Peter Stewart

--------

Apologies, I was distracted from responding to this part of your earlier post.

I think there is more room to doubt that Margaret was the daughter of Rohais de Clare than that her father was Eudo - one of the two sources stating the family of his wife, the history of the foundation of Colchester abbey, was written after 1533 in an imitation 12th-century script.

According to the other source, the annals of the abbey, Eudo's brother-in-law Gilbert de Clare laid the third stone of the abbey in 1096 (however this may be a 14th century interpolation). Gilbert certainly did have a sister named Rohais, but as far as I know we don't have a contemporary source making her the wife of Eudo.

As for consanguinity if Margaret's mother was Rohais de Clare, off the top of my head I can't think of any instances where Anglo-Normans got away with second-cousin marriages in the 12th century, dispensation or no, though perhaps someone else can.

Peter Stewart

---------

Many thanks again Peter.

I set out below an extract from the website, 'Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, Medieval Lands - A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families, Untitled English Nobility P-S', which provides certain information on the identify of Eudo's wife Rose.

Does this assist in clarifying her identify?

"... m ROHESE, daughter of RICHARD FitzGilbert de Brionne & his wife Rohese Giffard (-7 Jan 1121, bur Le Bec, Normandy[747] [Domesday Descendants, p. 400.]). "Eudo dapifer domini regis" founded Colchester St John, for the souls of King Henry I, Queen Matilda "...uxore mea Roaysia", by undated charter[748] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 1.]. Her parentage is confirmed by the undated charter under which "Rohais uxor Eudonis dapiferi" donated "manerium de Halingberi sicut dominus meus Eudo die qua vivus et mortuus fuit illud habebat" and land which "Gelebertus frater meus" gave her, for the souls of "Eudonis dapiferi mariti mei et Gilberti fratris mei"[749] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 48. ], which is corroborated by the undated charter under which "Walterus filius Roberti" donated "terram de teia" to Colchester St. John, for the souls of "patris mei Roberti filii Ricardi et matris mee Matildis et...Rohaise amite mee que ecclesiam Sancti Johannis fundavit et fratrum suorum", to Colchester St. John[750] [Colchester St John, Vol. I, p. 165.]. The History of the foundation of St John's abbey, Colchester also names "Eudoni...major domus regiæ" and "Roasya uxor eius...Gilbertum comes, Rohaisæ frater"[751] [Dugdale Monasticon IV, Colchester St John Abbey, Essex, I, Historia Fundationis, p. 607.]. Other sources suggest a different parentage for Rohese. According to Guillaume de Jumièges and the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, she was Rohese, widow of Richard FitzGilbert de Brionne, daughter of Gauthier Giffard & his wife Ermengarde (-after 1113, bur [Colchester]). Guillaume de Jumièges names "Galterium Giffardum primum" as father of "secundum Galterium Giffardum et filias plures" of whom "una...Rohais" married "Richardo filio comitis Gisleberti"[752] [Willelmi Gemmetensis monachi Historiæ Normannorum, Du Chesne, A. (1619) Historiæ Normannorum Scriptores Antiqui (Paris) ("Willelmi Gemmetencis Historiæ (Du Chesne, 1619)"), Liber VIII, XXXVII, p. 312.]. According to the Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire, "Rohesia" married secondly "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" after the death of "Ricardo filio comitis Gisleberti" and that they were both buried "tempore Henrici primi" in "castrum Clecestriæ...coenobio in honore sancti Johannis" which Eudo constructed[753] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. The Complete Peerage says that this parentage is "probably erroneous"[754] [CP V 113-4.]. From a chronological point of view, the connection would be tight, assuming that the death date of Richard FitzGilbert is correctly estimated to [1090] and the birth of Rohese's granddaughter by her alleged second marriage, Beatrix, is correctly assessed at [1105]. This supposed different parentage is disproved by the three sources quoted above. Eudes & his wife had [one possible child]:

i) MARGUERITE ([1080/90]-). The Genealogia Fundatoris of Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire names "Margareta" as daughter of "Eudoni dapifero Regis Normanniæ" and "Rohesia", adding that she married "Willielmo de Mandavill" by whom she was mother of "Gaufridi filii comitis Essexiæ et iure matris Normanniæ dapifer"[755] [Dugdale Monasticon V, Tintern Abbey, Monmouthshire III, p. 269.]. According to the Complete Peerage, this genealogy is "probably erroneous" but it does not explain the basis for the doubts[756] [CP V 113-4.]. Marguerite's second marriage is suggested by the charter dated [1141/42] under which Empress Matilda made various grants of property including a grant to "Willelmo filio Otuel fratri...Comitis Gaufredi"[757] [Round (1892), p. 169.]. The only Ottiwell has been identified was the illegitimate son of Hugh Earl of Chester. m firstly ([1100/05]) WILLIAM de Mandeville, son of GEOFFREY de Mandeville & his first wife Adelisia --- (-[1116]). m secondly ([1116/19]) OTTIWELL, [maybe OTTIWELL FitzHugh, illegitimate son of HUGH Earl of Chester & his mistress ---] (-drowned off Barfleur, Normandy 25 Nov 1120)."
(source: https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3P-S.htm#_ftnref747)

As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment. However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife. For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo.

Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is this a reasonable conclusion?

Cheers,

Pete

----------

The trouble with evidence from Colchester charters is that many of them are not reliable - the cartulary was compiled in the 13th century and some documents were substituted in the 14th. In 1911 Armitage Robinson concluded that ' the compiler or compilers of these forgeries must have had a number of genuine documents, which, though insufficient for the purposes contemplated, furnished the necessary historical setting ' (*Gilbert Crispin, Abbot of Westminster* p. 166). The Clare family connection may be true, but evidence independent of St John's abbey would be needed to establish the facts beyond question. Simply quoting snippets from dubious charters without context, as in the Medieval Lands database above, gives a false impression of certainty. The fact that the charter of Rohese does not call her brother Gilbert 'count' as in the foundation history, and the charter of Walter fitz Robert calling her his 'amita', suggest that these may be genuine documents, but these two sidelights are short of conclusive.

> As per the consanguinity issue, I do not know enough to comment.
> However, your statement that you have not seen similar cases of 2nd
> cousins marrying in the 12th century (or dispensation provided
> therefore) suggests that Geoffrey II de Mandeville is unlikely to be
> the grandson of Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's
> wife. For clarity, Rose fitz Richard de Clare, even if she was Eudo's
> wife, is unlikely to be the mother of Margaret, dau. of Eudo.

The possibility of Geoffrey de Mandeville taking his rights to Eudo's estates and dapiferate from a collateral relationship rather than direct descent is very limited. Eudo had several brothers: of these, Adam is excluded as the maternal grandfather of Geoffrey since Eudo was his heir; Robert was a bishop; Hubert had male heirs of his own. The only one left who could have been Geoffrey's grandfather, giving him seniority as Eudo's heir, was Radulf, castellan of Nottingham - but in that case, why wasn't his castellany part of the inheritance that Geoffrey was entitled to?

> Assuming that the ancestry of Geoffrey II de Mandeville's wife Rose de
> Vere is more established and accurate (i.e. there is no error on her end
> which would otherwise result in them not being so closely related), is
> this a reasonable conclusion?

Rohese de Vere's brother William, bishop of Hereford & chancellor, described their mother as 'Adeliza, filia Gilberti de Clare', so there is not much room for error there.

I think your caution about Geoffrey de Mandeville's maternal grandmother is warranted, and Keats-Rohan's unqualified assertion is too strong - without further evidence it is probably impossible to resolve this.

Peter Stewart

------------

This is just what I wanted to say to you - in an earlier post I suggested that applying Occam's razor would lead to making Rohese de Clare the only wife of Eudo, but your conscientious approach has persuaded me that it must actually make her his second wife, because it is necessary to assume a prior marriage in order to account for the inheritance of rights by Geoffrey de Mandeville as well as for his marriage to a grand-niece of Rohese. I can't find anywhere that this solution has been posited in print since Round and Hollister both overlooked it, but perhaps I am missing something.

Peter Stewart

----------