1st Baron of Offaly Gerald FitzMaurice

Notes:

THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF IRELAND FOR THE YEAR1914 PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS - PART 11, VOL.XLIV PAPERS

The Fitzgeralds Barons of Offaly

BYGODDA RD H. ORPEN, M.R.I.A., Member [Read 24 February 1914]
When studying afresh the pedigree of the barons of Offaly, from whom sprang the great house of the earls of Kildare, and, more recently, the dukes of Leinster, I was at the outset puzzled to know how they first became entitled to lands in Offaly. Strongbow, cantred of Offelan, the cantred in which Naas is situated, and this district was quite distinct from Offaly. Moreover, about the same time, Strongbow granted Offaly to Robert de Birmingham.

The eldest son of Maurice Fitzgerald was William FitzMaurice, who inherited the lands in Offelan granted to his father, and was confirmed in them by John, Lord of Ireland, in 1185. He was known as Baron of Naas. William gave half the cantred to his brother Gerald FitzMaurice. who thus obtained lands in Offelan, with centers at Maynooth and Rathmore. This grant was also confirmed by John in the reign of Henry II. But besides these lands, and certain lands about Croom (Limerick), in Imokilly, and elsewhere, with which we are not here concerned, as early as 1199 Gerald was in possession of the lands of Lea and Geashill. These places are in Offaly, and gave names to the principal Geraldine manors there. About September, 1199, they were claimed against Gerald FitzMaurice by one Maurice FitzPhilip, who seems to have been an official of King John. It does not seem worth while to make a conjecture about this claim, which is obscurely stated, and appears to have failed. About the same time the King granted letters of protection to Gerald, his chattels, men, and possessions, and at any rate it is clear from a mandate in the Patent Roll (5 John) that at Gerald's death, shortly before January 15, 1204, he was seized in his demesne as of fee of the castles of Lea and Geashill, Gerald FitzMaurice I, then, is rightly regarded as first baron of Offaly.

Even this bare statement of facts would naturally lead us to inquire whether Gerald did not obtain his lands in Offaly by a marriage with a daughter of the house of De Birmingham. He is indeed stated by Gilbert to have married a daughter of Hamo de Valognes, who was justiciar c.1197, but no authority is given for this statement, and I have been unable to find any support for it, While endeavoring to trace the devolution of Offaly, however, I have been led to the following conclusions:-first, that Gerald did, as a matter of fact, marry Eva de Birmingham, presumably daughter of Robert de Birmingham, first grantee of Offaly; that she was the mother of Maurice FitGerald II, second baron of Offaly, and that it was presumably through this marriage the family first acquired lands in Offaly; and secondly, that the heir of Maurice FitzGerald, second baron of Offaly, was not, as usually stated, his son Maurice FitzMaurice, but his grandson, Maurice FitzGerald III, son of an elder son, Gerald, who died in his father's lifetime, c.1243, that this grandson, who married as his second wife Agnes de Valence, the King's cousin, and was drowned in the Irish Channel in 1268. was the third baron of Offaly, and was succeeded in the barony by his son; and that Maurice FitzMaurice, who died in 1286, was never baron of Offaly at all. These are the main new points I hope to establish in this paper.

In dealing with the early pedigree of the Geraldines, it must be borne in mind that throughout the thirteenth century, at any rate, the family had no fixed surname. Members of the family are always designated in the contemporary documents by personal patronymies, changing with each generation. Thus in Latin documents we read of Mauricius filius Geraldi, Geraldus filius Mauricii, Thomas filius Maurieii, Johannes filius Thome, andc. So it was in French, substituting fiz (fitz) for filius and eve nearly Irish writers, though more ready to fix on a permanent patronymic, speak of Mac Muiris as well as Mac Gerailt. Neglect of this custom has contributed to the confusion which has beset the early steps in the pedigree of some branches, and yet the custom, if borne in mind, assists rather than impedes the correct affiliation of individuals. As, however, the names Maurice, Gerald, Thomas, and John recur more than once in the same or in different branches of the family, we must be on our guard against hasty identifications from identity of name. Dates must of course be carefully noted; but even but even accurate dates often fail to distinguish different individuals of the same name, and then the most important clue to identity is often to be found in the careful tracing of the devolution of lands in the various lines. For the purpose of this paper it will be necessary to follow out the devolution of Offaly.

On the death of Gerald FitzMaurice, first baron of Offaly, his heir, as will presently appear, was his son Maurice FitzGerald, then a minor of about nine years of age. There was therefore a long minority. On January 15, 1204, the custody of the castles of Lea and Geashill, and the wardship of Gerald's heir, were assigned to Earl William Marshal as lord of Leinster. Early in 1207, William Marshal went to Ireland, where dissensions had arisen between the justiciar, Meiler, FitzHenry, and the barons of Leinster and Meath. It appears that Meiler, acting on the King's order, had taken Offaly into the King's hand, and that this and other high-handed proceedings had incensed the barons against him. On May 23, 1207, the King reprimanded the barons for presuming to create a new assize without his consent, and for demanding that the justiciar should restore Offaly. In my Ireland under the Normans (vol. ii, pp. 209-215) I have endeavored to piece together the story of the discord between the earl and the justiciar, as far as it can be gathered from L'Histoire de Guillaume le Marhal, and from allusions in the records, and I need not here repeat it. Suffice it is to say that in March, 1208, the earl made his peace with the King who ordered Meiler to give seisin to the earl of the land of Offaly, with its castles. Maurice FitzGerald II appears to have come of age shortly before July 5, 1215, when he made a fine with the King of 60 marks to have the lands of Gerald, his father, in Ireland, with the castles of Crumeth (Croom), and of Dungarvan, in Oglassin (in Imokilly). On November 26, 1216, one of the first acts of the new King, or rather of Earl William Marshal, "rector regis et regne, " was to order Geoffrey de Marisco, the justiciar, to "cause Maurice FitzGerald to have seis in of the land of Maynooth, and of the lands whereof Gerald, his father, died seized in Ireland." Nothing is said expressly about Lea and Geashill, or the lands of Offaly.

It is not until the close of 1226 that we get a clue as to what had become of Offaly. It is, perhaps, not irrelevant to note that at this time the second Earl William Marshal, then lord of Leinster, was at enmity with Geoffrey de Marisco, who, in the preceding June, had superseded the earl as justiciar, the earl, as I have elsewhere shown, being strongly opposed to the new policy of confiscation which Geoffrey was appointed to carry out with regard to the King of Connacht. On December 10, 1226, the King issued a mandate to the "barons, knights, and free-tenants of Leinster" touching a plaint before the court of William Earl Marshal between Maurice FitzGerald, plaintiff, and Geoffrey de Marisco, justiciar of Ireland, defendant. Now, this mandate is preceded by a noteworthy preamble stating in general terms the law applicable to the case. I give this preamble and mandate as rendered from the Patent Roll, inserting in square brackets what I conceive to be its application to the case in question. After referring to King John's having ordained that English laws should be in force in Ireland, the preamble proceeds as follows:-

"Whereas the law and custom of England is that if a man [in this case Geoffrey de Marisco] marry a woman [Eva de Birmingham], whether widow [as in the case if Eva] or other, having an inheritance [Offaly], and he afterwards have issue by her [Robert de Marisco and perhaps other issue]whose cry shall be heard within four walls, that man, if he survive his said wife, shall have for his life the custody of his wife's inheritance, even though she may have an heir of full age [Maurice FitzGerald] by a former husband [Gerald FitzMaurice]. We therefore command you that in the plaint which is in the court of Earl William Marshal, between Maurice Fitzgerald, plaintiff, and Geoffrey de Marisco, our justiciar of Ireland, defendant, or in any like case, ye in no wise presume to give judgment to the contrary. Witness the King at Westminster, 10 December [1226]."

Now there is no doubt that Geoffrey de Marisco married Eva de Birmingham. She was his wife in February 1218, and was still his wife in June, 1223. It would seem then to follow that Eva de Birmingham was the mother of Maurice FitzGerald, and therefore had been wife of Gerald FitzMaurice. On no other supposition does the statement of law appear relevant to the case. The lands being in Leinster, and of the heritance of Eva de Birmingham, were presumably in Offaly. Thus our conjecture that Gerald FitzMaurice obtained Lea and Geashill, in Offaly, by a Birmingham marriage receives curious confirmation. If these lands were inherited by Eva de Birmingham, she would have been entitled to hold them of the Marshals, lords of Leinster, for her life. She died ex hypothesi shortly before the plaint was brought by her son and heir, Maurice FitzGerald, to recover the lands against Geoffrey; but the King intervened with a statement of the law, and Geoffrey remained entitled by "the curtsey of England."

But let us examine the circumstances a little more closely, and, in the first place, see how the dates work out. As Maurice FitzGerald came of age about 1215, he was born about 1194, and Eva was married to Gerald, his father, probably in or shortly before 1193. Gerald was dead in January 1204, and we next hear an Eva de Birmingham - presumably the same Eva-as the wife of Geoffrey FitzRobert, who mentions her as his wife in two deeds, to which Hugh le Rous, Bishop of Ossory (1202-1218), was one of the witnesses. He was, perhaps, the Geoffrey FitzRobert who was the second husband of Basilia, widow of Raymond le Gros, and at any rate he was one of William Marshal's most trusted vassals. He held from him the barony of Kells, in Ossory, and, early in the thirteenth century, was his seneschal of Leinster. He died in 1211, leaving Eva free to marry as her third husband Geoffrey de Marisco.

The Birmingham pedigree at this time is unfortunately obscure. With the exception of Robert de Birmingham, Strongbow's feoffee of Offaly, and this Eva, we hear of no one of the name in Ireland until about the year 1234, when mention is made of the land of Peter de Birmingham in Tethmoy. This Peter sided against Richard Marshal in this year, took part in the conquest of Connacht in the next, and in 1245 joined the expedition in aid of King Henry at Gannoe, in North Wales - in all three cases following the lead of Maurice FitzGerald.

I think he held his lands in Tethmoy as tenant of Maurice FitzGerald, and did not inherit them from Robert de Birmingham. It is noteworthy that the Birminghams, both in Leinster and in Connacht, were always surnamed by the Irish "Mac Fheorais," i.e. FitzPiers, and probably this Peter was the cponym of the clan. I conclude, then, that Eva, whether daughter or grand-daughter of Robert de Birmingham, was sole heiress of Offaly, and brought nominally the whole of it to her heir, Maurice FitzGerald II. There were indeed parts of Offaly in which the Normans never settled, but the early occupation was not confined to Lea (Clanmalier), Geashill, and Tethmoy. John FitzThomas of Desmond held the tuath of Oregan (ui Riagain), in Offaly, of Maurice Fitz Gerald III (to be mentioned later)for the moiety of the service of one knight with suit of court at Geashill.

According to the interpretation I have given of the mandate of December 10, 1226, Geoffrey de Marisco would, in ordinary course, have retained possession of Lea and Geashill up to his death. Now, eight years later, in consequence of the part he took against the Crown in the war of Richard Marshal, Geoffrey was thrown into prison, and his lands taken into the King's hands. Maurice FitzGerald took the leading part against Richard Marshal, and was rewarded by the King. It is clear from what follows that Maurice now obtained some lands of his which Geoffrey had held - and these lands were presumably Lea and Geashill. In September, 1234, when peace was made by the King at Marlborough between Gilbert Marshal and his brothers of the other part, and the community of Magnates of Ireland of the other part, the King granted to Maurice Fitzgerald that, notwithstanding the peace so made, he should have judgment of the King's Court touching certain tenements which Geoffrey de Marisco and others held of his (Maurice's) tenements. These tenements, we may infer with probability, were Lea and Geashill. Perhaps Geoffrey, facilitated the matter by surrendering the tenements to Maurice, for when, on August 3 1235, the King remitted his ire against Geoffrey, and ordered seisin to be given to him of his lands, he did so, "saving to the justiciar[Maurice] the lands which Geoffrey granted to him."

But if the conclusion that Eva de Birmingham, before she married Geoffrey de Marisco, was the wife of Gerald FitzMaurice should still seem no more than a plausible conjecture, fitting in with and explaining several facts indeed, but perhaps leaving open a chink for the admission of some other possible explanation, the following document - the last I shall quote on this point - will, I think , clinch the matter.

On August 19 1240, Maurice FitzGerald, the justiciar of Ireland, was granted provisionally "the custody of the land in Kerry which belonged to Robert de Mariscis who was the justiciar's brother, and the custody of Robert's heir." It is clear from this that Maurice FitzGerald, the justiciar in 1240, and Robert de Mariseis, were brothers of the half-blood, i.e. that they had the same mother. There can be little doubt that Robert de Mariscis was a son of Geoffrey de Marisco, or de Mariscis- the name is written in both ways - and bearing in mind what we have already established, the conclusion is irresistible: the mother of both Maurice and Robert was Eva de Birmingham.

To pass now to my second point, viz., that the heir of Maurice Fitzgerald, second baron of Offaly, was not his son known as Maurice FitzMaurice, but his grandson, another Maurice FitzGerald, son of his eldest son Gerald. This will perhaps be most conclusively shown by following out the devolution of Offaly; but it will be best to take first the crucial document which, properly understood, really settles the point. This document is calendered from the Close Roll, 42 Henry III, but not quite correctly, by Sweetman. Feeling great doubt about the correctness of the fifth line in Sweetman's abstract, which speaks of "the minority of Maurice, son and heir of the said Maurice FitzGerald, "I obtained from my friend Mr. Philip H. Hore a transcript of the entry in the Close Roll, and I found that the words here (when expanded) are: "ratione Mauricii filii Geraldi filii et heredis predicti Maureii filii Geraldiiqui infra ctatem est." Now in this passage the second filii must, I think, be taken in apposition to the immediately preceding Geraldii, and not to Maurieii, so that we have here four generations-Maurice, son of Gerald, son of Maurice, son of Gerald, which is, I think, correct. If the second filii be taken in apposition to Maurieii, we obtain the intrinsically absurd statement that Maurice, son of Gerald, was son of somebody else, viz., another Maurice, son of Gerald, and it is only through his omitting the first Gerald that this intrinsic absurdity does not appear on the face of Sweetman's abstract.

With this emendation, Sweetman's abstract is substantially correct. The document is an agreement made before the King, at Westminster, on Christmas Day, 1257, between the Lord Edward, the King's son, and Margaret, Countess of Lincoln, touching Offaly. The circumstances, partly recited in the document, were as follows:- Margaret, Countess of Lincoln, daughter of Robert de Quincy, Earl of Winchester, was widow of Walter Marshal, late Lord of Leinster (not, as stated in Burke, widow of Maurice Fitzgerald II), and as such she had obtained as dower the whole county of Kildare, and apparently the barony of Offaly. Accordingly, on the death of Maurice FitzGerald, second baron of Offaly, Margaret claimed the custody of the castles and lands of Offaly during the minority of the heir, namely, Maurice, son of the deceased baron's eldest son Gerald. It appears, however, that Maurice, younger (post nalus) son of the deceased baron, claimed the lands as against Maurice, his nephew (nepos suus), by virtue of his father's feoffment, or as his astrarius, or in some other way, and pending the decision of this claim, the Lord Edward would not give seisin to the countess. The agreement then virtually was that if Maurice (post nalus) persisted in his claim, the lands should be assigned to John FitzThomas [of Shanid]3 to hold pending the decision of the Lord Edward's court, and that if Maurice (post nalus) should make good his claim there under the feoffment or otherwise, then he should render fealty and relief to the countess; while if he should not make good his claim, then the lands and castles were to be restored to the custody of the countess during the minority of the heir.

It is really quite clear from this document that Maurice FitzMaurice was not, as stated in the received pedigrees, the eldest son and heir of Maurice FitzGerald II, who died in 1257, but a younger son (post nalus), and that the heir was Maurice FitzGerald III, grandson of the deceased, and nephew (nepos) of Maurice FitzMaurice. But, it may be asked, may not Maurice FitzMaurice have made good his claim to Offaly under his father's feoffment, and thus be rightly styled third baron, even though he was not the heir?

This question leads to a further correction. The feoffment alluded to appears to have been actually transcribed into the Red Book of the Earl of Kildare, begun in 1503. A sort of table of contents was compiled by William Roberts, Ulster King-at-Arms, and prefixed to a transcript of the Red Book made by him in 1633. This table has been printed in the Appendix to the Ninth Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, but it is incomplete, and sometimes misleading. The feoffment in question is there described as follows (p. 266):-"A graunt from Maurice, the sonne of Gerald, to his sonne Maurice, of all the lands of Offaly, Rathmoore, Fermayle, Carbry, with the castell of Sligath, all the lands of Fernanath, with the castle of Kilwisky, with lands in Tirconnell." Now from various documents, to some of which I shall refer, I was convinced that, as a matter of fact, Offaly did not go to Maurice FitzMaurice, but to his nephew Maurice FitzGerald III, and from him to his son Gerald FitzMaurice III. When recently, by the courtesy of Lord Frederick FitzGerald, I was given an opportunity of examining the Red Book, I turned up the deed in question, and found that it has been misunderstood, and is entirely misrepresented in the above-mentioned table of contents. As it is important to clear up this misconception, and as the deed has never, so far as I know, been printed, I give the essential parts of it here:-

"Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Mauricius filius Geraldi dedi et hacpresenti carta mea confirmani Mauricio filio meo pro homagio et serviciosuo et pro quieto clamio quam [sic] 1 michi fecit de tota terra Offalyecum omnibus suis pertinentiis et de terris de Maynooth Rathmore et deffermayll cum omnibus carum pertinenciis totam terram de Carbry cum Castro de Slygath tam in servicio quam redditibus et omnibus pertinenciissuis totam terram de ffermanath cum castro de Kylwysky2 tam andc. totamterram de Tirconyll tam andc. habendas et tenendas dicto Maurico etheredibus suis de me et heredibus meis iure hereditario libereandc. reddendo andc. unum falconem sorum vel decem solidos sterling andc. Hiistestibus domino Johanne filio Thome domino Johanne Pincerna Phillippode Stantona Mauricio filio Johannis Galfrido de Appilby Galfrido de Norragh Walerano de Wallesley Philippo de Hyntebyria (?) 3 Henrico de Capella Ricardo filio Willielmi Alexandro Crok Johanne filio Roberti Johanne Purcell Alano filio Mathei Ricardo de Santo fflorentio Nicholas de Dunheuyde Johanne le Poer Johanne de Capella Andrea le Poer Willclmode Punchardon Johanne Marescallo Roberto Crok Phillippo Wychecote et aliis." I think it will be seen that this deed is a grant from Maurice Fitzgerald to his son Maurice of certain lands in Sligo, Fermanagh, and Tirconnell, "in consideration of his homage and service, and inconsideration of the quit-claim which he has made to me of all the land of Offaly with all its appurtenances, and of the lands of Maynooth, Rathmore, and Fermayle with all their appurtenances."

So far from Offaly, andc., being included in the grant to Maurice FitzMaurice, his giving op to his father all claim to Offaly, andc., was the consideration for the grant of the other lands. The deed was perhaps executed not very long before the death of Maurice FitzGerald in 1257, and, at any rate, after the death of his eldest son Gerald, in 1243, when Maurice FitzMaurice may have been in actual possession of Offaly, asastrarius. Maurice FitzGerald II is said to have taken the habit of a Franciscan monk before his death, and to have died in the monastery which he had founded at Youghal.

I have now mentioned two documents - the only two so far as I know-which, as unfortunately described in the printed sources, may have misled previous writers into thinking that Maurice FitzMaurice was heir to his father, Maurice FitzGerald, the justiciar, and - though this is somewhat inconsistent-that Maurice FitzMaurice obtained Offaly by feoffment from his father. I have, however, shown that the documents themselves contain no such indications, but that the first clearly points to Maurice Fitzgerald, the justiciar's grandson, as the justiciar's heir, and the second plainly indicates that Offaly did not pass from the justiciar to his son Maurice. Positive Proof that Offaly passed to the justiciar's grandson and heir, Maurice FitzMaurice III, and that they were therefore third and fourth lords or barons of Offaly, respectively, will appear in the sequel; but it will help to a clearer understanding if we give some notes with regard to the justiciar's eldest son and his descendants, so as to establish the true succession in the senior line. They are not so well known as his second son, Maurice FitzMaurice.

Of Gerald, the justiciar's eldest son, we know little. He joined the King's expedition to Poiton in 1242, when he can hardly have been more than twenty-five years of age. He was paid and rewarded for his services, and is said to have died in Gascony in 1243. He left two infant children, a son and heir, Maurice FitzGerald III, and a daughter, Juliana, afterwards married to John de Cogan. There are several grants by Juliana in the Red book, to one of which we may here refer, as it is sufficiently establishes this part of the pedigree. It is a release and quit-claim from "Julianna Cogan, filia Geraldi filii Maurieii," to John FitzThomas, of all her rights, "ratione hereditarie successionis Mauricii filii Geraldi avi mei, Mauricii filii Geraldi fratris mei, et Geraldi filii Mauricii consanguinei mei," and it bears a date in July 1293.

Maurice FitzGerald III, who was still a minor in 1257, when his grandfather died, was numbered among the chief magnates of Ireland by 1262. He was implicated in the dissensions which arose in 1264 between the Geraldines and the Burkes, but probably his uncle, Maurice FitzMaurice, was the principal opponent of Walter de Burgh, the newly made Earl of Ulster. He was drowned when crossing the Channel to Ireland in July 1268, when he was about twenty-seven years of age. He was twice married, first to a wife whose name is unknown, by whom he had a son and heir, Gerald, born about February 1265, and secondly in 1266, to Agnes de Valence, the King's cousin. The Limerick lands were settled on this second marriage, but there was no issue from it.

There was now another long minority, and he wardship passed from hand to hand. Prince Edward granted the custody to Thomas de Clare, in recognition, no doubt, of the services of the House of Gloucester before and at battle of Evesham. By a deed of March 30, 1270, Thomas de Clare, for a fine of 3500 marks, sold to William de Valence the custody of the lands "which belonged to Maurice FitzGerald [III], deceased, with the marriage of his heirs, the custody of the castle of Leye and the manor of Rathingan." Here it appears plain enough for all to read that Maurice FitzMaurice (who was still alive) did not succeed to the lands in Offaly. Geashill is not specifically mentioned, perhaps because the castle had already been taken by the Irish, or more probably because Lea was "the chief castle of the barony," as stated in another document. From this last, indeed, it appears that Maurice FitzGerald III held the barony of Offaly of the lords of Leix, the chief of whom was Roger de Mortimer, by the service of twelve knights, and in 1274 it was decided before the King that Roger de Mortimer, and Matilda, his wife, were entitled to the "custody of the castle and honor of Leghey (Lea) till the age of Maurice's heirs, Maurice having held the castle and honor of them by knight service." Finally, in December 1283, Geoffrey de Geneville bound himself to William de Valence in 1200 "for the commission of lands of Maurice FitzGerald [III] and for the marriage of Gerald, son and heir of the said Maurice, under age, and in the custody of the said William. "This entry indeed suggests another correction in the received pedigree. It was clearly Gerald FitzMaurice III that married Joan, daughter of Geoffrey de Geneville, and not, as stated in Burke, Gerald FitzMaurice II, who died in 1243, before Geoffrey 's marriage. Gerald FitzMaurice III, fourth baron of Offaly, while not yet quite of age, appears to have led his vassals in the army of the justiciar into Wales in 1283-4, 1 at the time of the final conquest of that country. It was probably while he was absent in Wales that his castle of Lea was taken and burned by the Irish in 1284.2 Next year he was taken prisoner by "his own Irish of Offaly," to whom he was known as "Rothfalyaht" i.e. probably, Ruadh Failgheach, "the Red One of Offaly." In May 1285, he was granted a fair at Maynooth, and in 1287 he died. Accordingly to one (late, but probably correct) account he was slain in battle in Thomond along with Thomas de Clare, the husband of his father's cousin, Juliana. If so, he died on August 29, 1287. At his death he was Capitaneus Geraldinorum, "chief of the Geraldines," but he had only reached the middle of his twenty-third year.

I have now, I think, proved the two main points which I set out to prove; but these notes on the Geraldine barons of Offaly would be very incomplete if I did not at least indicate how John FitzThomas(after-wards first earl of Kildare), the fifth and most remarkable of them all, acquired the property and position he held. There can be little doubt that his father, Thomas, was a younger son of Maurice FitzGerald II-younger, probably, than his brother Maurice FitzMaurice. In one of the grants from Juliana de Cogan to John FitzThomas, transcribed in the Red Book, he is called "Johannes filius Thome filii Mauricii." We know little about Thomas FitzMaurice, except that he was given by his brother Maurice "the land of Bennede [Banada], in the cantred of Lune [now Leyny, Sligo], excepting the castle of Rathardereth" [Arderee, in the parish of Kilvarnet], and three villatas of land belonging to the said castle. In 1265 the castles of Bennfhada and Rathairderaibhe [Banada and Arderee] were burned and demolished by Aedh O'Conor; and in 1271 Thomas FitzMaurice died at his brother's castle of Lough Mask.

Now at the death, in 1287, of Gerald FitzMaurice, fourth baron of Offaly, his heir was his Aunt, Juliana, widow of John de Cogan; while the heirs of Maurice FitzMaurice, who died in 1286, were his two daughters, Juliana, wife (soon to be widow) of Thomas de Clare, and Amabil, seemingly a widow without children. Juliana de Cogan had a son, John, of full age, or nearly so; and Juliana de Clare had a son, Gilbert, an infant; but the nearest male descendant in the male line of Maurice Fitzgerald II would seem to have been his grandson, John FitzThomas. In recording the death of Gerald FitzMaurice, Capitaneus Geraldinorum, in 1287, Friar Clyn adds, hereditatem suam detit domino Johanni filio Thome filio adwunculi sui." This entry is, of course, not a contemporary one, but it does stand alone. By an inquisition concerning the manor of Athlacca. Limerick, taken in 1310, and transcribed at length in the Red Book, it was found (inter alia) that when Gerald FitzMaurice [III] came of age, and was seized of the manors of Maynooth, Rathangan, and Lea, in the county of Kildare, he enfeoffed John FitzThomas of them to hold to him and his heirs of the chief lords of the fee, together with the reversion of the aforesaid manors in county Limerick, and with all other reversions which might or should revert to himself in any way throughout all Ireland. The document is too long for a complete abstract of it to be here given. Suffice it to say that John FitzThomas did not get seisin of the Limerick manors during the lifetime of Gerald FitzMaurice; that the reversions, and c., fell to the lot of Juliana de Cogan, aunt of the said Gerald; and that she afterwards granted and released all her rights to John FitzThomas. There were further complications about the seisin, which John FitzThomas took in an irregular way; but the jury conclude by saying that "they do not know anyone to whom the said manor ought to remain, descend, or revert by hereditary right, or in any other way, unless to the said John FitzThomas." From another document it appears that John FitzThomas, in consideration of his services to Edward I in Scotland and Flanders, and to Edward II in Ireland, was pardoned for his intrusions on the said lands.

I could not find any deed of feoffment from Gerald FitzMaurice to John FitzThomas in the Red Book, but as regards Offaly, it contains the following Letters of Attorney - one from Gerald FitzMaurice, lord of Offaly, appointing John, the clerk, formerly provost (preposilus) of Leye, to deliver seisin of the manor of Leye to John FitzThomas or his attorney; and the other from John FitzThomas, authorizing Friar Roger, abbot of Rosglas [Monasterevin], to receive seisin of the manor of Leye. They are both dated at Rathymegan [Rathdangan], the former on the day of SS. John and Paul, a. r. Ed. XV [26 June 1287], and the latter on Tuesday next after the Feast of St. Swithin, a.r. Ed.XV [22 July 1287].

This was only a few weeks before the death of Gerald FitzMaurice.

It is clear, however, that John FitzThomas did not rely solely upon the feoffment from Gerald FitzMaurice. He soon set about getting in, so far as he could, all the rights or claims of the female heirs. He does not seem to have acquired the share of Juliana de Clare in the property of Maurice FitzMaurice; but the Red Book contains a great number of grants and releases between the years 1293 and 1297 from Juliana de Cogan and her son, John de Cogan, and from Amabil, daughter of Maurice FitzMaurice, conveying to John FitzThomas all their rights and claims to the succession of the several lands in connacht, Tirconnell, Fermanagh, county Limerick, Imokilly, Offaly, and Maynooth, which belonged to either Gerald FitzMaurice or to Maurice FitzMaurice at their respective deaths. In this way, and by other purchases, and finally by the grant of Kildare from the King, John FitzThomas became the most powerful landholder in Ireland, with the possible exception of his rival and antagonist, the Red Earl of Ulster.

Gerald married Heiress of Offaly Eve de Bermingham about 1193. Eve (daughter of Baron of Offaly Robert de Bermingham) was born in 1165 in Offaly, Kildare, Ireland; died before Dec 1226. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

1. 2nd Baron of Offaly Justiciar of Ireland Maurice FitzGerald was born about 1190 in Offaly, Kildare, Ireland; died in 1257 in Franciscan Friary, Youghal, Ireland.

Notes:

Died:
Abbey Grey Friar, Welford, Berkshire, England

Maurice married Alice de Montgomery. Alice (daughter of Arnulph de Montgomery and Lafracoth O'Brien) was born in 1115 in Munster, Ireland. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Granted Mulsford, Berks. by Henry I; Constable of Pembroke Castle, 1108

Gerald married Nest verch Rhys about 1089. Nest (daughter of King of Deheubarth Rhys ap Tewdwr Mawr and Gwladus verch Rhiwallon) was born about 1073 in Dynevor, Llandyfeisant, Caemarvonshire, Wales; died about 1163. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Known as the most beautiful woman in Wales. She had many lovers. In Christmas 1108 Owain ap Cadwgan of Cardigan came to visit Gerald and Nesta. He so lusted after her that he, that night, attacked the castle and carried her off and had his way with her. This upset Henry I so much that the incident started a war.

Nesta - mother and grandmother of Norman-Welsh Invaders; children from three fathers: Stephen the Castellan, Gerald FitzWalter and Henry I. In Christmas 1108 Owain ap Cadwgan of Cardigan came to visit Gerald and Nesta. He so lusted after her that he, that night, attacked the castle and carried her off and had his way with her. This upset Henry I so much that the incident started a war. Her father was Rhys ap Tewdwr Mawr, Prince of South Wales (1081-1093). Her brother, Gruffydd ap Rhys, Lord of South Wales was the father and grandfather of two Gruffydd Ap Rhys, who were titled Lord Rhys of South Wales.


South Wales is quite long. Her father was Rhys ap Tewdwr Mawr, son of was Tewdwr Mawr (the Great) ap Cadell. Tewdr Mawr was the son of Cadell ap Einion, son of Einion ap Owain, who in turn was the son of Owain ap Hywel Dha, King of South Wales. Owain was the son of Hywel Dha (the Good) ap Cadell, Prince of Deheubarth, who in turn was the son of Cadell ap Rhodri Mawr, King of South Wales. Cadell was the son of Rhodri Mawr (the Great), Prince of South Wales, who was the son of Merfyn the Freckled, King of Gwynedd, who was in turn the son of Gwriad of Man, King of Gwynedd, and so on. her had a son named Henry FitzHenry (1103-1157). One of Henry's sons was Meiler FitzHenry who was also involved in the Norman invasion. Henry also had sons, Robert, Master Morgan and Amabel FitzHenry. Meiler married a de Lacy, claimed to be a daughter of Robert de Lacy (d. 1220), and had another son known as Meiler FitzHenry. The elder Meiler (or Meyler) FitzHenry assisted a David (Walsh) in becoming rector of Dungarvan and Bishop of Waterford in 1204.

Notes:

PEMBROKE
From Lewis' Topographical Dictionary of Wales (1833)

PEMBROKE, a borough, market-town, and sea-port, having separate jurisdiction, locally in the hundred of Castlemartin, county of PEMBROKE, SOUTH WALES, 6 miles (S.E. by E.) from Milford, 10 (S. by E.) from Haverford west, and 248 (W.) from London, containing, exclusively of the parish of Monkton, 5383 inhabitants. The name of this place is derived from the words Pen-Bro, literally signifying a headland or promontory, and originally applied to a district nearly corresponding in extent with the present hundred of Castlemartin, stretching out into the sea, and separating Milford Haven, on the north, from the Bristol channel on the south. On the erection of a castle and the consequent growth of the town, the name of the district in which they were situated was transferred to them, and subsequently to the whole of the county of which that town became the capital. The early history of this place is involved in some confusion: it is stated by Giraldus Cambrensis, that Arnulph de Montgomery erected here, in the reign of Henry I, a slender fortress of stakes and turf, which, on his return into England, he placed under the custody of his constable and lieutenant, Giraldus de Windesor. In the Chronicle of Caradoc of Llancarvan, who was contemporary with Giraldus, it is expressly stated that the castle was attacked in 1092, and again in 1094, by the forces of Cadwgan ab Bleddyn, but that it was so strongly fortified as to baffle every effort of that chieftain to reduce it. The latter of these dates, which is some years prior to the accession of Henry I, contradicts the statement of Giraldus Cambrensis, with respect to the time of the original foundation; and the result of the attacks by so formidable an enemy is at variance with his description of the character of the fortress. Arnulph de Montgomery, on the accession of Henry I., having joined in a confederacy against that sovereign, the castle of Pembroke, together with his other estates, became forfeited to the crown, and Henry afterwards conferred the castle, together with the lordship of Carew and several other manors, on Giraldus de Windesor, Arnulph's lieutenant, who had married Nt, daughter of Rhys ab Tewdwr. According to Caradoc of Llancarvan, Giraldus or Gerald de Windesor rebuilt the castle of Pembroke in the year 1105, on a more advantageous site, called "Congarth Vechan," and removed into it his family and his goods. Soon after this, according to some authorities, Owain, son of Cadwgan ab Bleddyn, having heard the beauty of Nt extolled at a banquet given by Cadwgan, either at his castle of Aberteivy, or at that of Eare Weare, in the parish of Amroath, came, under the pretence of relationship, to pay her a visit at this place, and becoming enamored at this interview, resolved upon carrying her away by force. For this purpose, having obtained the aid of some young men as profligate as himself he returned in the evening to the castle, which he entered unobserved, and, placing a guard over the chamber of Nt, set fire to the building, and, in the confusion and alarm which ensued, forcibly conveyed her and her children to his residence in Powys. Other writers, however, are of opinion that the castle of Carew was the scene of this outrage and abduction. The alliance of Gerald with the native princes of the country, by his marriage with Nt, who was some time after restored to him, subsequently excited the jealousy of Henry, who used every possible means to circumscribe his authority, as far as was consistent with the safety of the English interests in this province.

Gilbert de Clare, surnamed Strongbow, was created Earl of Pembroke, by Henry I., in 1109, and thus became possessed of the royal territories in this quarter, and of the castle of Pembroke; and in 1138, the earldom was erected into a county palatine, with the privilege of jura regalia; and, under the authority of its earl, a session and a monthly county court were held within the castle. In the latter all pleas of the crown were determined, fines levied, and recoveries passed: the writs were issued in the name of the earl, who held also at this place his courts of chancery and exchequer. Strongbow enlarged the castle, which he strengthened with additional fortifications, and made it in every respect a residence suitable to the dignity of the elevated rank which he held. He also incorporated the inhabitants of the town, which had arisen under the protection of the castle, and which he surrounded with a lofty embattled wall, defended by numerous bastions, and entered by three principal gates and a postern. Under the protection and influence of its earls Pembroke became a place of great importance; and in the year 1172, Henry II. kept the festival of Easter in the castle. Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, after the defeat of the Lancastrians at the battle of Barnet, retired into the castle, in which were then residing the young Earl of Richmond and his mother; but he was soon besieged by Morgan ab Thomas, brother of the celebrated Rhys ab Thomas, a zealous partisan of the house of York, to whom he must have surrendered the fortress, had not David, another brother, who had embraced the opposite interest, come promptly to his assistance, and conveyed him, together with the Countess of Richmond and her son, to Tenby, where they embarked for France.

The suppression of the palatine jurisdiction, in the reign of Henry VIII., deprived Pembroke of its dignity as the metropolis of a regality; but during the civil war of the seventeenth century, its strength rendered it the scene of many important transactions. The castle, at the commencement of the war, was the only fortress possessed by the parliamentarians in this part of the principality, and was placed under the command of Colonel Rowland Laugharne. In 1643, Admiral Swanley arrived with the parliamentarian fleet in Milford Haven, and reinforced the garrison with two hundred mariners and several small pieces of cannon, with the aid of which the governor succeeded in reducing most of the neighboring fortresses, which were garrisoned for the king. In 1647, Colonel Laugharne, and likewise Colonels Powell and Poyer, abandoning the interest of the parliament, and embracing that of the opposite party, made Pembroke their head-quarters, and the rallying point for the army which they raised on behalf of the king; and after their defeat in the disastrous battle of St. Fagan's, in Glamorganshire, retired hither with the remnant of their forces, closely followed by the parliamentarian army, led by Cromwell in person, who immediately commenced the siege of the town, taking post at Welsdon, a village about two miles and a half from it. The siege was conducted with the greatest vigor, and sustained with obstinate valor by the garrison, who were resolved to hold out to the last extremity; but Cromwell having found means to destroy their mills, and their supply of water being also cut off by the destruction of a staircase leading into a cavern under one of the towers, in which was their chief reservoir, there remained only the alternative of a lingering death or immediate submission. Under these circumstances the garrison capitulated, on condition that their chief leaders should throw themselves on the mercy of the parliament; that several of the inferior officers should leave the kingdom, not to return within two years; that all arms and ammunition should be given up, and that the town should be spared from plunder. Laugharne, Powell, and Poyer were afterwards tried by a court martial, and being found guilty of treason, were condemned to be shot; but the authorities being induced to spare two of them, it was ordered that they should draw lots for this favor; and accordingly three papers were folded up, on two of which was written "Life given by God, "and the third left blank: the latter was drawn by Colonel Poyer, who was shot in Covent Garden, on the 25th of April, 1649. That the surrender of the garrison was justly attributed to the failure of their supply of water, by the accident above noticed, has been confirmed by a recent discovery of the cavern, in which was found a copious spring of water, with the shattered remains of a staircase leading to it from the tower, the bones of a man, and several cannon balls.

Arnulph married Lafracoth O'Brien. Lafracoth (daughter of Muirchertach O'Brien and Dubhchobhleigh Na Ossory) was born in 1076 in Munster, Ireland. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Castellan of Windsor 1078; warden of Forests in Berks 1066-1078

Walter married Beatrice de Offaly. Beatrice was born about 1041 in Offaly, Kildare, Ireland. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

THE NORMANS OVER-RUN WALES

By 1081 the native dynasties had reasserted their integrity with Gruffuddap Cynan and Rhys ap Tewdwr emerging to the fore. However it was apparent that the fragmented Wales bequeathed by the defeat of 1063 was ill placed to resist the Norman power. That challenge assumed the form of both piecemeal advance by the Marcher lords as well as the concerted power of William the Conqueror.

Initially Wales suffered the brunt of attack by both. Indicating his commitment to exercise overlordship William I in 1081 led an expedition into South West Wales - in all probability accepting the submission of Rhys ap Tewdwr of Deheubarth in return for an annual payment of L40. Gruffudd ap Cynan was not as fortunate. He was captured by the forces of the Earl of Chester and imprisoned for at least twelve years. During this period individual Marcher lords were also conquering territory along the Welsh border.

Rhys ap Tewdwr survived in power until 1093 but his death created a power vacuum into which both Welsh contenders and Norman Marcher lords - with centralized aid and direction - rushed. As a consequence Wales was effectively over-run. It appeared that the Norman conquest of England of 1066 was being followed by the Norman conquest of Wales of 1093.

"1093 ...Rhys ap Tewdwr, king of Deheubarth, was slain by the French who were inhabiting Brycheiniog. And then fell the kingdom of the Britons..... And then, two months after that, .... the French came to Dyfed and Ceredigion, which they have held to this day, and they fortified them with castles ; and they seized all the land of the Britons ...."

Brut y Tywysogion 1093 (Hergest version.)

Rhys married Gwladus verch Rhiwallon. Gwladus (daughter of Rhiwallon ap Cynfyn) was born about 1041 in Powys, Wales. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Her marriage to Walter Fitz Other is indicated in 2 WFT's. However it is not backed by Burke's Peerage. Additionally her daughter is documented (by WFT and Burke's) to be the wife of Walter's son Gerald FitzWalter which would not have been allowed if Nesta were her child by Walter.

Notes:

According to Winston Churchill, the Montgomeries (a very great house of Norman England) sided with Robert, Duke of Normandy, against his brother Henry I, in the war of succession after William Rufus, William The Conqueror's designated heir for England was killed in a hunting accident. Henry I destroyed the power of the Montgomeries starting in September, 1100. He captured Robert in Normandy in the battle at Tinchebrai and combined England and Normandy again.

http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/m/montgom2.html
Clan Montgomery

The Montgomerys are a Lowland clan of Anglo-Norman origin. Roger de Montgomery called "The Great" was father to another Roger, born about 1030 who was joint Regent of Normandy when William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066. Montgomery followed King William to England where he was created Earl of Arundel, he was later made Earl of Shropshire or Shrewsbury and the county of Montgomery is named after him. The first of the family in Scotland was Robert de Montgomerie who obtained a grant of the lands of Eaglesham in Renfrewshire, for some time the principal home of the Montgomeries. His descendant John Montgomerie of Eaglesham was the distinguished warrior who captured Henry Percy called Hotspur at the Battle of Otterburn in 1388. With Percy's ransom he built the castle of Polnoon as well as acquiring the lands of Eglinton and Ardrossan through his marriage to Elizabeth of Eglinton. His grandson, Sir Alexander was created Lord Montgomerie and became a member of the King's council. Hugh, the 3rd Lord Montgomerie was created Earl of Eglinton in 1507. He was amongst those who opposed James III and fought at Sauchieburn in 1488, where the king lost his life. He also received the Isle of Arran with the custody of Brodick Castle. The 2nd Earl remained a devout Catholic at the Reformation and fought on the side of Mary Queen of Scots at her final defeat at Langside in 1568. He was declared guilty of treason and imprisoned in Doune Castle. When he was released he tried to secure the safety and toleration of Catholics in the wake of the Reformation. Ironically his daughter Lady Margaret married Robert Seton, 1st Earl of Winton, a loyal Covenanter in the wars of Charles I and it was their son, Alexander Seton who took the name Montgomerie who became the 6th Earl of Eglinton. He was also a Presbyterian supporter and followed Charles II. He was imprisoned for his Royalist sympathies by General Monk in 1659 after the death of Cromwell however in the following year it was Monk himself who restored the monarch to his throne. The 9th Earl was one of the Privy Council of King William and later Queen Anne and during the rebellion of 1715 actively promoted the training of the fencible men of Ayrshire. The 11th Earl raised the 77th Foot Highlanders. The 13th Earl was renowned for his celebrated tournament at Eglinton Castle in 1839. The Montgomeries and the Cunninghams had one of the longest running feuds in Scotland; in the 16th century Eglinton House was burnt and the 4th Earl was killed by Cunninghams, finally it was resolved by the government.

Thanks to James Pringle Weavers for the following information

MONTGOMERIE - This name is said to derive from Sainte Fio de Montgomerie in the Lisieux in Normandy, and the name arrived in Scotland with the Norman barons who were granted lands during the 12th century. The first of the name in Scotland is reputedly Robert de Montgomerie who obtained the lands of Eaglesham in Renfrewshire during that century. John, 7th of Eaglesham, distinguished himself at Otterburn in 1388 by capturing Henry 'Hotspur', and with proceeds of the ransom built Polnoon Castle. He extended his landholdings by marrying Elizabeth de Eglintoun, thus securing the Baronies of Eglintoun and Ardrossan in Ayrshire. Their grandson, Sir Alexander, Governor of Kintyre and Knapdale, became 1st Lord Montgomerie in 1445, and was the ancestor of the Montgomeries of Skermorlie. The Montgomeries of Stanhope, created Baronets in 1801, trace descent from Robert, brother of Sir Alexander. Hugh, 3rd Lord Montgomerie, was made Earl of Eglinton in 1507, and his brother, Robert, is the reputed ancestor of the Earls of Mount Alexander in Ireland. The 3rd Earl supported Mary Queen of Scots, and was captured at Langside in 1568. Towards the end of that century Lady Montgomery established linen and woolen manufacturing in Ireland and is reputed to have encouraged the manufacture of tartan there. The 3rd Earl's daughter, Margaret, married Robert Seton, 1st Earl of Winton, and in 1612 their son Alexander took the name and arms of Montgomerie on succession as 6th Earl of Eglinton. Archibald, 13th Earl of Eglinton, was created also Earl of Winton in 1859, as heir male of the Setons, but he was never recognized as chief of that name since he kept to the name of Montgomerie.

The Conqueror and His Companions
by J. R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874..

"William sat on his war-horse and called out Rogier, whom they name De Montgomeri. ' I rely greatly on you. Lead your men thitherward and attack them from that side. William, the son of Osbern, the seneschal, a right good vassal, shall go with you and help in the attack, and you shall have the men of Boulogne and Poix and all my soldiers' " (i.e. paid troops -- mercenaries). Such are the words Wace puts in the mouth of the Conqueror. And yet, according to Orderic, Roger de Montgomeri was not present at Hastings, having been left by the Duke in Normandy, governor of the duchy.

His statement is most explicit. King William, during his visit to his Norman dominions in 1067, was greatly disquieted by the reports from England of the disaffection of his new subjects, and the advantage taken of it by the Danes. "Leaving the government of Normandy," he proceeds, "to his Queen Matilda, and his young son Robert, with a council of religious priests and valiant nobles, to be guardians of the state, he rode, on the night of the 6th of December, to the mouth of the river Dieppe, below the town of Arques, and setting sail with a south wind in the first watch of the cold night, reached in the morning, after a most prosperous voyage, the harbour on the opposite coast called Winchester.... In his present voyage he was attended by Roger de Montgomeri, who at the time of his former expedition to invade England was left with his wife, governor of Normandy." Now when we remember that the father of Orderic was Odelirius of Orleans, one of the followers of this very Roger de Montgomeri when he came into England, and for his services received a grant of land lying on the banks of the river Meole at the east gate of Shrewsbury; that, with the help of his lord, he founded the monastery there of St. Peter and St. Paul, to which he retired in 1110, the Earl himself having died therein fourteen years previously; that Orderic, born in 1075, was at school at Shrewsbury until he was ten years of age, when he was sent to Normandy, became a monk in the Abbey of St. Evreux, of which Roger de Montgomeri was a patron and benefactor, revisited England in 1115, and was living, at the age of sixty-six, in 1141, -- it surely follows, that of all the companions of the Conqueror he had ever seen or heard of, Roger de Montgomeri, Earl of Shrewsbury, his father's lord and friend, was the one respecting whom he must have possessed the most accurate information. Is it likely, supposing Roger de Montgomeri had commanded a wing of the invading army, and performed feats of bravery at Senlac, that his servant and protégéâe who came over with him, and must in that case have been present at Hastings himself, would have been silent on the subject? Would not his deeds have been the theme of his whole household, and of the very school-fellows of the young Orderic? Was the Lord of Belesme amongst the noble personages who accompanied King William on his visit to Normandy in 1067? and if not, what was he doing in England during the disturbances in the King's absence? How was it that a man of his position and prowess was not associated with the other great warriors appointed to guard the realm and administer justice throughout it? His name never occurs even incidentally during that period.

Against this, to me overwhelming evidence, we have to place the statement of William of Poitiers, who, without any allusion to Roger de Montgomeri, simply says that Roger de Beaumont was the person at the head of the council appointed by the Duke to assist Matilda in the government of Normandy, and that of Wace, who circumstantially describes the actions of Roger de Montgomeri in the great battle. As the latter authority distinctly contradicts William of Poitiers, by making "old Rogier de Belmont" present at Senlac, in lieu of remaining in Normandy to counsel Matilda, he is as likely to be wrong in one assertion as the other. William of Poitiers is more to be trusted, but he does not say that Roger de Montgomeri was in the battle; he makes no mention of him whatever, though he gives the names of a dozen of the principal personages present; nor does he prove that he was not amongst the noble and wise men selected by the Duke to compose that council, of which the writer states Roger de Beaumont was the president. Mr. Freeman, confiding in the archdeacon, sets down the assertion of Orderic as "a plain though very strange confusion between Roger of Montgomeri and Roger of Beaumont." I only suggest that the son of Odelirius is the least likely person to have made that confusion, and that we have no proof of Roger de Montgomeri's presence in England previous to 1068.

The Lord of Belesme, however, is too remarkable a personage in the annals of those times to be omitted, on anything short of conclusive evidence, from an account of the companions of the Conqueror, and his family history is full of stirring and romantic incidents.

Orderic has minutely chronicled his marriages, his children, his deeds of valour and piety, his death and burial, and yet such is the mist that hangs over the genealogical history of our ancient nobility, that the father of this great and powerful Earl has only been recently identified. Brooke, in his Catalogue, declared him to be the son of Hugh de Montgomeri and of Sibell, his wife, fifth daughter of Herfastus the Dane, brother of Gunnora, Duchess of Normandy. Vincent triumphantly quotes the monk of Jumièges in contradiction of this assertion, and insists that hee was the son of Hugh de Montgomeri by Jocellina, his wife, daughter of Turolf de Pontaudemer, by Weeva, sister of the said Duchess Gunnora, and so he continued to be considered, notwithstanding that many passages in Orderic show this to be a mistake, until the French editors of that historian and the late Mr. Stapleton, in his illustration of the Norman Rolls of the Exchequer, clearly proved that the first Earl of Arundel and Shrewsbury was not the son of a Hugh de Montgomeri by either lady, but of another Roger de Montgomeri, living in the time of Richard III and his brother Robert, Dukes of Normandy, and who in an early deed describes himself: "Ego Rogerius, quam dicunt Montgomeri." His son Roger, the subject of this memoir, in the act of foundation for the Abbey of Troarn in the Hiemois, acknowledging and distinguishing his father in the following words: "Ego Rogerius, ex Normannis, Normannus magni autem Rogerii filius."

"The old chronicler, Robert du Mont, had heard," observes Mr. Stapleton, "of the reputed descent from a niece of the Duchess Gunnora, wife of Richard 1, Duke of Normandy, but the genealogy given is certainly erroneous in making her, as wife to Hugh de Montgomeri, the immediate progenitrix of Roger, the Viscount of the Oximin or Hiemois."

To any one unaccustomed to the examination of such subjects, it would appear strange that modern historians and genealogists could have overlooked the obvious inference to be drawn from the very circumstantial account given of the assassination of Osbern the seneschal by Guillaume de Jumièges himself, who, in the second chapter of his seventh book,,,,,,, informs us that Osbern, the son of Herfast, brother of the Duchess Gunnora, had his throat cut by William, son of Roger de Montgomeri, one night while sleeping in the Duke's chamber at Vaudreuil; that Roger, for his perfidy, was exiled to Paris; and that five of his sons, Hugh, Robert, Roger, William, and Gilbert, continued their wicked careers in Normandy.

Surely no statement can be much clearer than this that there was a Roger de Montgomeri living during the minority of William II, Duke of Normandy, who had five sons, the third being named after him, and who, it is evident from subsequent passages in the same and other histories, was the Roger de Montgomeri who ultimately became Earl of Shrewsbury. Of these five sons we can trace the destinies. Hugh, Robert, and William were slain, -- the latter by Barno de Glotis, a servant of the Seneschal Osbern in revenge for the murder of his master. Roger was Viscount of the Hiemois; and Gilbert, his youngest brother, was unintentionally poisoned by his sister-in-law, as I shall hereafter have occasion to mention.

Of the five sons of the first Roger de Montgomeri, Hugh was apparently the eldest, as at the foot of one of his charters in the time of Duke Robert is "Signum Hugonis filii ejus," and it is therefore highly probable that the father of the first Roger might have been named Hugh, and was the husband of one of the nieces of Gunnora, and the confusion have arisen from that circumstance.

The story told by the monk of Jumièges, though clear enough ass regardss the family of Montgomeri, is obscure in other respects. William de Montgomeri is named as the murderer of Osbern, who, if there be any truth in the statement of Brooke, must have been his near kinsman, and Roger, the father of the criminal, is banished, apparently for the crime; which would imply that he was " particeps criminis" -- the instigator or accomplice of his son.

However this may be, it appears to have been the result of a personal quarrel, if not a family feud, for Orderic records that Osbern, the steward of Normandy, and William and Hugh, two sons of Roger de Montgomeri, and many other powerful knights, made war on each other in turn, causing great distress and confusion in the country, which was deprived at that time of its natural protectors, simply mentioning that Osbern was one of the many nobles who fell in those mutual quarrels.

The genealogy of the Dukes of Normandy from Rollo is in all the collateral portions exceedingly confused, and the chronology of the duchy itself beset with difficulties.

Next to Charlemagne, the Duchess Gonnor, or Gunnora, appears to have been the favourite starting-point for our Norman genealogists. If there is any insuperable obstacle in the way of hooking their line on to the Emperor of the West, they eagerly hitch it up, no matter how, to some loose end of the family of that fortunate fair one for whose romantic history we are indebted to the pages of Guillaume de Jumièges. As it is short ass well as romantic, and so very old that it may be new to many of my readers, I will venture to tell it in the fewest words possible.

One of the foresters of Richard 1, Duke of Normandy, was blest with a most beautiful wife, of Danish blood it would appear, named Sanfrie, the report of whose charms inspired the Duke with a vehement desire to ascertain the truth of it by personal observation. He therefore ordered a hunting party in the direction of the forester's dwelling, at which he stopped during the day, as a matter of course for rest and refreshment. The beautiful Sanfrie received her sovereign as was her duty, and the Duke was so captivated that he commanded her husband to resign her to him. As resistance could avail nothing, the woman, who had as much wit as beauty, contrived to substitute her sister for herself, and, the Duke, luckily for all parties, was not only well pleased with the exchange, but piously rejoiced that be had escaped a more flagrant breach of the decalogue. The fair substitute was named Gonnor or Gunnora, and on the death of Richard's first wife became Duchess of Normandy, and mother of Duke Richard II, called after her Gonnorides.

Such is the story, and at least there is no doubt about the marriage, which naturally led to the elevation of the other members of the Duchess's family. Besides Sanfrie (the wife of the forester), Gunnora had two sisters, the one named Eva or Weeva, and the other Avelina or Duvelima, and a brother named Herfast: and to one or other of these lucky Danes the majority of our Norman pedigrees are, as I have stated, hung on by hook or by crook.

The date of the death of the elder Roger de Montgomeri is not yet known, but he was evidently dead in 1056, when Roger II invited Gislebert, Abbot of Chatillon, with his monks, to Froarn, and expelled thence the twelve canons who had been placed there by his father in 1022, and had abandoned themselves to gluttony, debauchery, carnal pleasures, and worldly occupations.

We have already heard of William Talvas, the Lord of Belesme, who cursed the Conqueror in his cradle (vide p. 9, ante). Roger de Montgomeri married, in 1048, Mabel, the daughter of that William, and niece of Ivo de Belesme, Bishop of Séez from 1035 to 1070. By this match he acquired aa large portion of the domains of his father-in-law, and by the advice of Bishop lvo, his wife's uncle, transferred the Church of St. Martin of Séez to Theodoric, Abbot of St. Evroult, and, in conjunction with hiss wife, earnestly entreated the Bishop to erect a monastery there, which it appears he did. Now this Mabel, the chronicler tells us, was both powerful and politic, shrewd and fluent, but extremely cruel. Still she had a high regard for the excellent Theodoric, and in some things submitted to his admonitions, although in general averse to religious men.

"This lady," he subsequently tells us, "maliciously caused many troubles to the monks of St. Evroult, on account of the hatred she bore to the family of Giroie, founders of that abbey, but as her husband, Roger de Montgomeri, loved and honoured the monks, she did not venture to exhibit any open signs of her vindictive feeling. She therefore made the abbey her frequent resort, attended by numerous bands of armed retamers, under pretence of claiming the hospitality of the brotherhood, but to their great oppression, in consequence of their poverty through the barrenness of their land. At one time, when she had taken up her abode at the abbey with a hundred men-at-arms, and was remonstrated with by Abbot Theodoric on the sinful absurdity of coming with such a splendid retinue to the dwelling of poor anchorites, she exclaimed, in great wrath, 'When I come again my followers shall be still more numerous!' The abbot replied, 'Trust me, unless you repent of this iniquity, you will suffer what will be very painful to you.' And so it happened, for the very night following she was attacked by a disorder which caused her great suffering. Upon this she gave instant orders for being carried forth from the abbey, and flying in a state of alarm from the territory of St. Evroult, passed by the dwelling of a certain farmer named Roger Suissar, whose newly-born child she stopped for a few moments to suckle, with a hope of obtaining relief. It caused her severe pain at the time, but she reached home, we are told, completely restored to health, the unfortunate infant dying shortly afterwards."

Of course the honest monk who believes "each strange tale devoutly true" has no suspicion that the abbot took care that his prophecy should be fulfilled, and gave the very inconvenient visitor a dose which would not kill her, but cure her of coming to the abbey. The death of the baby, if it did die, was a coincidence too tempting not to be made the most of.

In 1063 Arnould d'Eschafour, son of William Giroie, the founder of the Abbey of St. Evroult, against whose family a deadly hatred had been continually cherished by that of Belesme, and who by the machinations of Mabel had been banished Normandy, presented himself at the Court of the Duke, and offering him a magnificent mantle, humbly entreated that his inheritance might he restored to him. The Duke, at that moment being in want of brave soldiers for his wars with the Manceaux and the Bretons, with his usual policy accepted the gift, and promised to restore him his estates (the greater proportion of which Mabel had contrived to obtain for her husband), giving him meanwhile free passage through his territories for a limited time.

Returning from the Court in company with Gilbert de Montgomeri, brother of Roger, he stopped at his Castle of Eschafour, then in the possession of Roger and Mabel, whose attendants pressed him earnestly to partake of some refreshments their lady had ordered them to set before him. He had, however, received from a friend a hint of some treachery, and remembering the warning, steadily refused to touch either the meat or the wine. Gilbert, who had ridden there with him, quite unconscious of the foul design, took a cup without dismounting from his horse, and draining its poisoned contents, died three days afterwards at Remalord. Thus, observes Orderic, this perfidious woman, attempting to destroy her husband's rival, caused the death of his only surviving brother, who was in the flower of his youth, and much distinguished for his chivalrous gallantry. Foiled in this attempt, she shortly afterwards made another, as deadly and unfortunately more successful. By means of entreaties and promises she induced Roger Gulafre, the chamberlain of Arnould, to become the instrument of her murderous designs.

Arnould being at Gourville, near Châtres, with his relatives, Giroieeee deeee Courville and Willlliaamm, surnamed Gouet de Montmirail, the traitor Gulafre took an opportunity of serving to his master and the other two nobles the poisoned beverage he had received from Mabel: Giroie and William de Montmirail survived the effects of the poison, but Arnould, after languishing for some days, expired on the 1st of January, 1064. After his decease the great family of Giroie gradually fell to decay, and for twenty-six years their lands remained in the possession of that of Montgomeri.

A truly terrible fate, however, awaited this infamous woman, who, according to the chronicler, had caused many great lords to be disinherited and to beg their bread in foreign lands. Amongst her victims was Hugh de la Roche d'lgé, in the Canton de Belesme, from whom she hadd wrested his castle on the rock, and had deprived of the inheritance of the lands of his fathers. In the extremity of his distress he undertook a desperate enterprise. With the assistance of his three brothers, men of undaunted courage, he forced an entry by night into the chamber of the Countess (for such was her rank at that time) at a place called Bures, on the Dive, near Froarn, and severed her head from her body as she lay in bed after having taken a bath. Their vengeance satiated, they lost no time in making good their retreat. Hugh de Montgomeri, her second son, who was in the castle with sixteen men-at-arms, on hearing of his mother's murder, instantly took horse and pursued the assassins, but was unable to overtake them, as they had taken the precaution to break down behind them the bridges over the rivers, which, being flooded and the night dark, presented such obstacles in the way of the pursuers that the four brothers succeeded in crossing the frontiers of Normandy, and took unmolested the road to Apulia.

Mabel was buried at Froarn on the 5th of December, 1082, Durandus being at that time the abbot who disgraced himself by causing a fulsome epitaph, preserved by Orderic, to be inscribed on the tomb of a detestable murderess.

I have travelled a little out of the record, as the lawyers say, in order to complete the story of this special representative of the hereditary wickedness of the family of Belesme, and must now return to her husband, whom the chronicler appears to acquit of direct complicity in the darker deeds of his wife, and simply observes, that as long as Mabel lived he was, at her instigation, a very troublesome neighbour to the inmates of Ouche, she having been always opposed to the family of Giroie. In 1066 we find him at the Council of Lillebonne, and, according to Taylor's List, contributing a noble contingent to the fleet of his sovereign, "A Rogero de Mongomeri sexaginta naves," the furnishing of which by no means proves that he accompanied them to England.

Wace is the only writer worth consideration who speaks of him as present in the great conflict, and selected by the Duke to command a wing of the invading army, while Dugdale, quoting the annals of St. Augustin at Canterbury, says he "led the middle part," which Wace as distinctly asserts was led by William himself, composed of all his principal nobles, his personal friends and kinsmen. Neither Robert du Mont, nor William of Jumièges, nor Benoit de St.-More, nor William of Poitiers, nor the authorr of Carmen de Bello make any mention of Roger de Montgomeri at that period, while Wace, not content with giving him the command of an important division, tells us of his single combat with a gigantic Englishman, captain of a hundred men, who, with his long Saxon axe, had hewed down horse and man till the Normans stood aghast at him. Roger de Montgomeri, riding at full speed with his lance couched, and shouting "strike, Frenchmen!" ("Ferrez, Franceiz") bore the giant to the earth, and revived the courage of his soldiers. Orderic, however, seems never to have heard of this brilliant exploit, nor anyone else that I am aware of.

In 1068, however, he appears to have been in England, and two years afterwards received from the Conqueror the earldoms of Arundel and Shrewsbury, with the honour of Eye in Suffolk, and various estates in the counties of Cambridge, Warwick, Hampshire, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Staffordshire, Hertfordshire, Surrey, and Middlesex, amounting in all to one hundred and fifty-seven manors, besides the cities of Chichester and Shrewsbury, and the Castle of Arundel.

At the same date (1070), by the death of Ivo, Bishop of Séez, he became,, in right of his wife Mabel, Seigneur of Belesme and Count of Alencon, which, added to his patrimonial lordship of Montgomeri, rendered him comparatively as powerful in Normandy as in England.

In 1077, the Earl of Shrewsbury accompanied King William in his expedition to recover the province of Maine, which had revolted, and, after its submission, marched with a division of the army to the relief of the Castle of La Flèche, in which its lord, John de la Flèche wasas besieged by Fulk le Rechin, Count of Anjou. A battle being prevented by the interposition of some Cardinal not named, terms of peace were agreed upon, Roger Earl of Shrewsbury and William Count of Evreux taking a prominent part in the negotiations. This treaty is known as the Peace of Blanchelande or of Bruere, from the locality in which it was concluded.

After the death of his wicked wife Mabel by the vengeful sword of Hugh de la Roche d'lgé, in December, 1082, Roger de Montgomeri married Adelaide,,, daughter of Everard de Puiset, an amiable and virtuous lady, who wrought by her advice and her example a great change for the better in his character, which, naturally good, had been warped by the arts and influence of his former Countess.

His building of the church at Quatford, near Bridgenorth, in Shropshire, was due to one of those so-called " pious frauds," of which we read so many accounts in our mediaeval chronicles, and which in this instance was practised on the Countess Adelaide.

On the first passage of this excellent lady from Normandy to England there arose so great a storm at sea, that nothing but shipwreck was expected by the mariners. The chaplain of the Countess, being much wearied with long watching, fell asleep, and saw in his dreams a comely matron, who said to him, "If your lady would be preserved from the danger of this dreadful tempest, let her vow to God that she will build a church to the honour of St. Mary Magdalen in the place where she shall first meet the Earl, her husband, in England" (he having preceded her thither some short time), "and specially where an hollow oak groweth near a hog-stye." All which, when the priest awoke, he related to the Countess, who forthwith made her vow accordingly, whereupon the tempest ceased, and she and her attendants landed safely in England. Journeying to rejoin her husband, she, after divers days, encountered him near Quatford, in a wood, hunting, at a certain spot where such an oak as "the comely matron" had described then grew -- and near a hog-stye, I presume, though it is not mentioned. She lost no time in informing her lord of the chaplain's vision and her consequent vow, and prayed him to fulfil it. The Earl, in gratitude for the preservation of his wife, readily assented. The church in honour of St. Mary Magdalen was built, endowed with ample possessions, and given to the Earl's collegiate chapel in the castle at Bridgenorth -- much to the advantage, no doubt, of the reverend chaplain, who may have been one of the clergymen, Godebald or Herbert, by whose counsels, Orderic tells us, in addition to those of Odelirius, the Earl was always prosperously guided.

The Earl, in common with many of the Norman nobility, appears to have been much attached to Robert Court-heuse, who, with all his faults, was brave, generous, and kindly-hearted. Witness his conduct when besieging his brother Henry in Mont St. Michel, in 1091. The garrison, being in great distress from want of water, Robert forbade his soldiers to prevent detachments issuing from the place to draw water from the wells, and, on being blamed by William Rufus for his consideration, exclaimed, "What, shall we suffer our brother to perish of thirst? who can now give us another should we lose him?" Where shall we find such an incident recorded of the heartless tyrant, his father, who ridiculed and hated him?

As early as 1081, we find the name of Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury, amongst those who zealously interceded with King William at Rouen in favour of Robert after the battle of Gerberoi, and, after long pleading, succeeded in effecting a reconciliation between them, which, reluctantly consented to by the former, was of very brief duration; and on the accession of William Rufus he proved still further his affection for Robert, and his opinion of the injustice with which he had been treated by the Conqueror, by joining with the Earls of Kent, Cornwall, and other powerful noblemen in the attempt to place Robert on the throne of England, as the eldest son and rightful heir to the crown; and though not openly taking up arms, secretly favouring the movement, his three eldest sons, Robert, Hugh, and Roger, being amongst the young nobility who held Odo's castle at Rochester against the King. The Earl of Shrewsbury is said to have been gained over by the artful promises of Rufus to submit his right to the crown to be decided by him and others whom the late King had assigned to be his curators; and after the reduction of Rochester, and the suppression of the rebellion, we find Earl Roger fortifying his Castles of Belesme and Alencon in the cause of the King, and his son Robert a prisoner of that very Duke of Normandy, to place whom on the throne they had so recently risked their lives and properties.

The accounts of these tergiversations are so confused and discordant that, beyond main facts, it is dangerous to state anything, and as to the motives we are completely in the dark; but the days of Roger de Montgomeri were now briefly to be numbered. He returned to England in 1094, and having obtained from the Abbey of Cluni, of which he was a benefactor, the habit of its celebrated abbot, St. Hugh, assumed it, and was shorn a monk in the Abbey of St. Peter and St. Paul at Shrewsbury, with the consent, we are assured, of his wife, the Countess Adeliza, and for three days before his death wholly applied himself to divine conference and devout prayers with the rest of the community, expiring, in the odour of sanctity, 6th kalends of August, in the above year, leaving by his first wife, Mabel, five sons and four daughters: Robert, the eldest son, who succeeded to his mother's large estates in Normandy as Count of Alencon and Seigneur de Belesme; Hugh, who inherited his father's domains in England, with the earldoms of Arundel and Shrewsbury; Roger, surnamed of Poitou, in consequence of his marriage with Almodis Countess of March, who possessed great estates in that province, and also sometimes called Earl of Lancaster for a similar reason; Philip, who accompanied Duke Robert to the Crusades, and died at Antioch; and Arnoul, who married Lafracota, daughter of a king of Ireland, and by conquest obtained that part of South Wales now called Pembrokeshire, and, building a castle there, appears to have been sometime entitled Earl of Pembroke, as his brother was of Lancaster. The daughters by Mabel were Emma, Abbess of Almenache; Maud, wife of Robert, Count of Mortain and Earl of Cornwall; Mabel, wife of Hugh de Château-neuf; and Sibil, who marriedd Robert Fitz Hamon, Lord of Corboil, in Normandy.

By his second wife he had only a son named Everard, who took holy orders, and was chaplain to King Henry I.

The Earls of Eglintoun are presumed to be descended from this family of Montgomeri, but no proof has ever been made, and though in 1696 there existed a Comte de Montgomeri in France, an Earl of Montgomery in England, a Montgomery Earl of Eglintoun in Scotland, and a Montgomery Earl of Mount Alexander in Ireland, the link has yet to be found which would legitimately connect these noble families with that of the great Earl of Shrewsbury, who has only transmitted his name to us in that county of North Wales which he won by the sword and called Montgomery.

Roger married Mabel de Talvas d'Alencon in 1048 in Perche, France. Mabel was born about 1026 in Alençon, Orne, Basse-Normandie, France; died on 2 Dec 1079 in Bures Castle near Bayeux, France. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Muirchertach married Dubhchobhleigh Na Ossory. Dubhchobhleigh was born about 1050 in Ireland; died in 1098. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]