|
|
Matches 6,751 to 6,800 of 7,713
| # |
Notes |
Linked to |
| 6751 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Mary Ann (I19377)
|
| 6752 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Theodosia (I19378)
|
| 6753 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Edward (I19380)
|
| 6754 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Mayo (I19392)
|
| 6755 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Frances Ann (I19394)
|
| 6756 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Henningham (I19395)
|
| 6757 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. | Bernard, John (I19396)
|
| 6758 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. Her will was probated 11 Feb 1811 in Richmond, VA. She had 8 children.
DAR # 593761 | Carrington, Henningham (I19420)
|
| 6759 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. Nathaniel was the Lt. of a Cumberland Co. VA Militia company and also a Capt. His will was probated 28 Nov 1803, Cumberland Co., VA.
DAR # 593761 | Carrington, Nathaniel (I19419)
|
| 6760 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 265. Phoebe was the daughter of Benjamin and Priscilla (Wager) Harris of Cumberland Co., VA. | Harris, Phoebe (I19393)
|
| 6761 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 266 - daughter of Richard and Elizabeth (Griffin) Adams of Richmond; after death of her husband, she sold Boston Hill (59 1/2 acres) to Benjamin Carrington in 1809. Four children listed. | Adams, Ann (I19398)
|
| 6762 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 266 - Her will was dated 21 Feb. 1824 and probated 18 March 1829, Goochland Co., VA. Nine children listed in this source.
DAR # 593761 | Carrington, Mary (I19363)
|
| 6763 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p. 266 - Joseph Watkins was said to be "the richest man in Goochland County." Joseph left a will, dated 16 March 1804, probated 18 Feb. 1805, Goochland Co., VA. | Watkins, Joseph (I19399)
|
| 6764 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), p.255 - Mary was the daughter of John and Elizabeth Howell of St. John's Parish, Barbados. 8 children listed. | Howell, Mary (I19360)
|
| 6765 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), pp. 254, 257 - Dr. Hearne first married Dorothy Outram in 1714; and third Mary Cowse in 1759. His will was probated 23 June 1764. | Hearne, John (I19471)
|
| 6766 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), pp. 254, 257. She was her husband's second wife. Hannah and John had 8 children listed in this source. | Carrington, Hannah (I19352)
|
| 6767 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), pp. 254-5: As the eldest son, Nathaniel inherited 2/3 of his father's Carrington's Plantation (225 acres, his portion, with 73 slaves)and his mother, 1/3. | Carrington, Nathaniel (I19351)
|
| 6768 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), pp. 256-7 - Also a merchant and resided in Bridgetown, Barbados when not in England. Will dated 5 July 1755 and probated 2 July 1756. Married twice; one child by first wife and five by the second. | Carrington, Paul (I19353)
|
| 6769 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70 (1982), pp. 265-6: Surveyor, justice of the peace, sheriff, member House of Delegates (VA); Capt. during Am. Revolution; 1786-88, Lt. Col. commandant 17th VA Militia Regt. Mayo inherited Boston Hill in 1785 and was buried there.
DAR # 593761 | Carrington, Mayo (I18365)
|
| 6770 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 254 - TWIN of Dr. Paul.
Never married; no issue. Resided in Antigua. Will dated 14 Oc 1734, probated 30 Oct 1734, Antigua, recorded 16 Oct 1745, Barbados. Bro Nathaniel Carrington was executor. | Carrington, Robert (I19356)
|
| 6771 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 254 - TWIN of Robert.
Will dated 12 Jan 1733/4, probated 15 March 1733/4. No issue. | Carrington, John (I19355)
|
| 6772 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 265 - died in infancy. | Carrington, Benjamin (I13730)
|
| 6773 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 265- Nicholas left a will. | Cabell, Nicholas (I15744)
|
| 6774 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Littleberry (I13711)
|
| 6775 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Paul Jones (I13712)
|
| 6776 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 265. | Carrington, Joseph (I13714)
|
| 6777 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 265. | Carrington, George J. (I13715)
|
| 6778 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), p. 265: Theodosia was the dau. of Benjamin and Mary (Poindexter)Mosby of Cumberland Co., VA. | Mosby, Theodosia (I13353)
|
| 6779 |
The Carrington Family of VA, from Natl. Gen. Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 70(1982), pp. 25, 258-9
Codrignton either purchased or inherited Carringtons Plantation after the death of brother Nathaniel. First member of Carringtons to hold high public office in Barbados; vestryman, sheriff, militia officer, member of the House of Assembly for St. Michael's Parish in 1750's and 1760's; Court of Exchequer, 1748; 1756, Comptroller of Excise, 1761, Speaker of the House pro tem. He traded with relatives in VA and was Barbados agent for American businesses. In 1756, his Bridgetown residence was destroyed by fire, which swept through the city. One of his letters still exists, to his brother George Carrington of Goochland, VA. His will dated 31 May 1762 and probated 14 June 1764, described at length on page 259 of this source. No issue. | Carrington, Codrington (I19354)
|
| 6780 |
The children of John Doan and May Cargill authored the
Cargill/Doan/Hays book. | Cargill, May (I24517)
|
| 6781 |
The children of John Doan and May Cargill authored the
Cargill/Doan/Hays book. | Doan, John (I24518)
|
| 6782 |
The Complete Peerage v. XII p II, p 358, note a. | de Meulan, Waleran (I7976)
|
| 6783 |
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J. R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874........
Of the three great names at the head of this chapter [Wm F. O., Roger de Montgomeri, Robt de Beaumont], that of William Fitz Osbern claims precedence as the nearest personal friend of the Conqueror, and the chief officer of his household. Son of that Osbern the son of Herfast, otherwise Osbern de Crépon, who was foully murdered in the bed-chamberr off his young sovereign by William de Montgomeri, he succeeded him in his office of Dapifer and the favor of the Duke. No particular feat of arms is recorded of him, though he must have fought in some, if not all, of the battles in Normandy during the twenty years or more which immediately preceded the invasion of England, from that of Val-ès-Dunes in 1047 tooo that of Varaville in 1060, and was probably with the Duke in his expeditions against Conan in Brittany and his invasion of Maine in 1063. We have proof at least of his presence at the siege of Domfront in 1054, when he was sent with Roger de Montgomeri to demand an explanation from Geoffrey Martel of his conduct in marching into Normandy and seizing Alençon. It is not, however, till thee memorable year 1066 that hee becomes a prominent person in the history of Normandy and of England. He appears to have somewhat resembled his master in character, combining great valor with much readiness of wit and astuteness of policy. We have seen him entering the hall of the Palace at Rouen "humming a tune," and rousing the moody Duke from his silent and sullen consideration of the news from England by bidding him bestir himself and take vengeance on Harold, who had been so disloyal to him; to call together all that he could call, cross the sea, and wrest the crown from the perjured usurper. William followed his advice, as most people do when they have already determined on taking the course suggested, and "Osbern, of the bold heart," was very likely aware of that fact when he ventured to express his opinion. The call was made first of the Duke's relatives and most confidential friends, and then of the whole baronage of Normandy. It is at this last and large assembly at Lillebonne that the audacity and cunning of Fitz Osbern become strongly apparent.
Considerable hesitation, and in some instances direct objection, being displayed to the adoption of the project, and the council breaking up into groups to discuss it, the wily Dapifer flitted about from one influential chief to the other, suggesting the danger of driving their feudal lord to extremities; that they should rather anticipate his wishes than suffer him to ask their aid in vain, and that it would be much worse for them eventually, should the Duke have to complain that his enterprise had failed in consequence of their defection. Puzzled and irresolute they at length requested him to speak to the Duke in the name of the whole body, and say not only that they feared the sea, but also that they were not bound to serve him beyond it.
Having thus contrived to be elected their spokesman, he, with the greatest effrontery, assured the Duke that they were unanimous in their determination to support him. That to advance him they would go through fire and water. They would not only cross the sea, but double their service. He who should bring twenty knights would cheerfully bring forty; he who was bound to serve with thirty would come with sixty, and the barons who had to serve with one hundred men would join him with two hundred. As to himself, he promised to furnish sixty ships laden with fighting men. The barons were as indignant as astounded at this unwarrantable declaration. Many openly disavowed him; all was tumult and confusion. "No one could hear another speak; no one could either listen to reason or render it for himself" (Roman de Rou).
The Duke then withdrawing to one side of the hall, sent for the barons one by one, and assuring them of his love and grace, pledged himself that if they would support him, as Fitz Osbern had stated, by doubling their service on this occasion, that they should not be called on in future for service beyond what was the custom of the land, and such as their ancestors had always rendered to their feudal lord. The Duke's eloquence was successful, and, as before stated (page 51), each baron's promise was recorded by scribes ready at hand as soon as it was made.
In Taylor's List, the number of ships furnished by Fitz Osbern, whose name stands first upon it, agrees with that mentioned by Wace. "Habuit a Willielmo Dapifero, filio Osberni LX naves." No knights are mentioned.
We next hear of him on English ground. While the Duke of Normandy was haranguing his forces on the morning of the battle, "William Fitz-Osber" rode up and interrupted him, saying, "Sire, we tarry here too long, let us all arm ourselves. Allons! Allons!" Wace, who recounts this incident, says, Fitz Osbern's horse was "all covered with iron." This is one of the instances in which he has been guilty of an anachronism, no such practice existing in the days of the Conqueror (vide the Bayeux Tapestry), but at the time that he composed the Roman de Rou, the fashion had been imported from the East by the Crusaders, and the horses were often coated with chain from the tail to the nostrils. In the disposition of the army, he was selected by the Duke to be a leader of the wing composed of the men of Boulogne and Poix, but we hear of no special incident connected with his name in the course of the battle.
The reward of his great and long-continued service was promptly bestowed upon him. The earldom of Hereford and the lordship of the Isle of Wight being the principal honors; the manor of Hanley, in Worcestershire, and several in Gloucestershire and other counties, which, in consequence of his dying before the great survey, cannot now be identified.
In addition to these substantial benefits, King William, on his return to Normandy in 1067, made him governor of his newly built Castle of Winchester: an office of great responsibility, as Winchester at that period was a city second only in importance to London. Its palace was the favorite residence of Edward the Confessor and the early Norman kings. It possessed a mint and a treasury, in which the riches and regalia of the sovereign were deposited, and was consequently to be most jealously guarded. The Conqueror also associated him with Bishop Odo, in the vicegerency (sic; viceregency) of the realm during his absence. Fitz Osbern having the chief administration of justice in the north, and Odo in the south of the kingdom.
On the defeat of Edgar Athelin and his confederates at York by the Conqueror in 1068, William Fitz Osbern was appointed governor of that city, and in the following year was hastily summoned to relieve the cities of Shrewsbury and Exeter, simultaneously attacked by the Welsh and the disaffected men of Cheshire, Devonshire, and Cornwall. He was too late to save Shrewsbury, which the insurgents, under Edric the Wild, had burned and abandoned; but reaching Exeter at the moment when a sudden sally of the garrison had driven back the besiegers and thrown them into confusion, the Earl, in conjunction with Count Brian of Brittany, fell upon them and put them nearly all to the sword.
In 1070, he was sent to Normandy by King William in order to assist Queen Matilda, the duchy being at that time in a very disturbed state. About the same period war broke out in Flanders between Richilde, widow of Count Baldwin VI -- called De Mons, and mother of his eldest son and heir, Ernulph -- and Robert, surnamed the Frison, who claimed the regency during the minority of Ernulph, in conformity with the will of his deceased brother. Matilda, taking the side of her sister-in-law, sent the Earl of Hereford with what forces she could spare to her aid. The Earl was then a widower, and either from love or ambition, became a suitor for the hand of the still fair Countess of Flanders.
Richilde, either responding to his affection, or from a desire to attach the valiant Norman more thoroughly to her interest, married him, and made him titular Count of Flanders.
He did not long, however, enjoy his dignity, for, on the 22nd of February, 1071, a sanguinary engagement took place at Ravenchoven, near Cassel, between the forces of Robert the Frison and those of the Countess Richilde and her ally, Philip I, King of France, in which both her son, young Count Ernulph, and her husband, the Earl of Hereford, who fought by his side, fell together.
According to Meier, the death-blow of William Fitz Osbern was dealt by one of his own knights, named Gerbodon, who had previously unhorsed him, but we are left in doubt as to the motive of the felon. The Earl's body was carried by his men-at-arms to the Abbey of Cormeilles, in Normandy, of which he was the founder in 1060, and buried there "amid much sorrow." His first wife, Adelina or Adeliza, was the daughter of Roger de Toeni. The date of her death is uncertain, but it probably took place some few years before the Conquest. She was buried at the Abbey of Lire, on the river Risle, in Normandy, which was also founded by Fitz Osbern as early as 1046; perchance on the occasion of his marriage, as Cormeilles may have been on that of her death. The dates are at least suggestive.
By Adelina de Toeni he had three sons and two daughters. The eldest son, William, succeeded him as Lord of Breteuil and Pacy, and in all his other possessions in Normandy. The second, Ralph, was shorn a monk, when young, in the Abbey of Cormeilles; and the third, Roger de Breteuil, had the earldom of Hereford and all the land his father held in England. The eldest daughter, Emma, married Ralph, Earl of Norfolk, of whom much hereafter. The name of the second and that of her husband are at present unknown, but she became the mother of Raynold de Cracci. (It is clear, therefore, that Dugdale and the other genealogists are in error, who give to Roger de Toeni for wife Alicia, a daughter of William Fitz Osbern, independently of the fact that in that case she would have been his own grand-daughter. Adela, by Pere Anselm called Helene, the widow of Roger de Toeni, and mother of Adeline or Alicia, wife of Will. Fitz Osbern, married secondly Richard Count of Evreux, vide chapter viii., p. 249.) A natural daughter of William de Breteuil, named Isabel, married Ascelin Goel, and was the direct ancestress of the Lovels of Tichmarsh. (Vide vol. ii, ch. vii) | FitzOsbern, Earl of Hereford William (I8895)
|
| 6784 |
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874..
second of that name, and son of Hugh "with the Beard," Lord of Montfort-sur-RisIe, near Brionne, was the companion of the Conqueror at Hastings. His father, with whom he has been often confounded, fell in mortal combat, with Walkelin de Ferrers, who received his death-wound at the same time, during the days of anarchy which followed the succession of the boy William to the Duchy of Normandy.
We hear first of his son Hugh H. as one of the commanders of the Norman forces at the famous battle of Mortemer already spoken of, but of which more will be told in the memoir of its lord, and next in the list of those who furnished contingents to the fleet and army of the great expedition, wherein we find him set down as a contributor of fifty ships and sixty knights. ["Ab Hugone de Montfort L naves et LX milites."] In the battle he and the Seigneur de Vieuxpont gallantly rescued William Malet, who had his horse killed under him, and would have been slain himself but for their timely aid. They lost many of their people, but succeeded in protecting Malet, and mounting him on a fresh horse. [Rom. de Rou] Hugh de Montfort is supposed to be one of the four named by Bishop Guy as the mutilators of the body of Harold at the close of the conflict; I need only here repeat my utter disbelief in an improbable statement supported by no other contemporary writer.
For his services he received (before the completion of Domesclay) sixteen manors in Essex, fifty-one in Suffolk, nineteen in Norfolk, and twenty-eight in Kent, in addition to a large proportion of Romney Marsh, and was one of the barons intrusted by the Conqueror witli the administration of justice throughout England, under Bishop Odo and William Fitz Osbern in 1067; and by the Bishop himself, Hugh de Montfort was made Governor of the Castle of Dover, the chief fortress in Odo's own earldom, and the key of the kingdom. His absence on other duties with the Bishop south of the Thames was taken advantage of by the Kentish malcontents, and led to the assault of the castle by the Count of Boulogne, the failure of which has been already related.
The monk of Jumièges informs us that he was twice married, but namess neither of his wives; one, however, appears by his account (Lib. vii. ch. 38) to have been a daughter of Richard de Bellofago (Beaufoe), by a daughter of the Count of lvri, and was therefore niece of John, Archbishop of Rouen, of Hugh, Bishop of Bayeux, and of the wife of Osbern de Crépon. By the first we are told he had two sons, Hugh andd Robert, and by the second, a daughter named Alice, eventually heir to her brothers, both of whom died without issue, and who became the wife of Gilbert de Gant, son of Baldwin VI Count of Flanders, and consequently nephew of Queen Matilda.
The date of the death of Hugh II, who became a monk in the Abbey of Bec, is not known, but if the holder in Domesday, he must of course have been living in 1085, his father having been slain some forty-eight or forty-nine years, previously. He might probably, therefore, be a young man at the battle of Mortemer in 1054, between forty and fifty at the time of the Conquest, and under seventy if he survived the accession of Rufus. His second son Robert was Commander-in-Chief of the Norman army in Maine in 1099, and on his joining the Crusaders under Bohemund, in 1107, received a hearty welcome and a high rank in the army in consequence, as Orderic speaks of his being " hereditary Marshal of Normandy." ["Strator Normanici exercitus hereditario jure."]
If this be not a mistake, his elder brother must have been dead at the former date. At all events his father, Hugh II, is styled "the Constable" by Orderic in his enumeration of the personages present in the battle of Senlac.
A few words in conclusion respecting the accusation of Guy, Bishop of Amiens. That prelate was almoner to the Duchess Matilda, and accompanied her to this kingdom in 1068. He therefore had special opportunities of picking up the reports of the day; but he was not like his brother Bishops of Bayeux and Coutances, actually present at Senlac, and his poem being composed before his journey to England, must therefore have been written from hearsay only. The continuator of William of Jumièges,,, whooooo mentions his poem, and calls him "a respectable author," dddoeees not back his opinion by adopting the Bishop's account of the death of Harold. Neither does Orderic Vital, who was, nevertheless, acquainted with the poem, and says it was an epic in imitation of Virgil and Papinius, describing the battle of Senlac, blaming and accusing Harold, and highly praising and exalting William. A MS. of the 12th century, discovered by Dr. Pertz in the Royal Library at Brussels, is supposed, from its general character, to be the poem in question, the initials L. W. in the second line being interpreted to signify " Wido to Lanfranc." Mr. Petrie, who has published this poem in his "Monumenta Historica Britannica," observes that it is not improbable that Guy was the writer, but Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy, in his Descriptive Catalogue of Materials relating to the History of Great Britain (vol. i. p. 671), appears less impressed with its authenticity. Without, however, raising that question, 1 have shown the probability that Count Eustace de Boulogne was put hors de combat before the fall of Harold, that there is no evidence whatever of a noble heir of Ponthieu being present in the battle, even if he were in existence at that period, and that no other historian corroborates the poet's assertion.
The story appears to me to be a sensational version of the account given by Benoît de St.-More, who says that Harold fell pierced byy three lances, and his skull cloven to his cars by a dozen swords ÇC itself an evident exaggeration of the plain fact as related by Henry of Huntingdon, which is, that twenty of the bravest knights pledged their troth to each other that they would cut through the English troops and capture the royal ensign. In this attack the greater part were slain, but the remainder, hewing away with their swords, readied and seized the standard. Meanwhile a shower of arrows fell round King Harold, and he himself was pierced in the eye. A crowd of horsemen now burst in, and the King, already wounded, was slain. Cut down in the furious charge with the gallant few who stood their ground beside him, perhaps even undistinguished by his slayers themselves, who in the hasty and general slaughter could not possibly have found time or opportunity to indulge in such wanton barbarity. The English heavy-armed Housecarls fought to the death long after the fall of their King. To have cut off the head of Harold, to have scattered his entrails, the perpetrators must have dismounted, and assuredly had never mounted again.
Could any combatant in the Norman host have been identified as having inflicted a mortal wound on the heroic King of the English, his name would have been as notorious as that of the Conqueror himself. Honest Master Wace acknowledges that he never heard who slew him, only that he was found dead amongst the dead. Walter Giffard and Hugh de Montfort, or some other Hugh, may have been amongst thic twenty who bound themselves to capture the standard; and even that honour has not been appropriated to any individual, but their complicity in the disgraceful acts attributed to them is to me incredible. The "lie circumstantial" is always accompanied by the names, and the Bishop of Amiens, if he really did write the song of the battle of Hastings, has not proved an exception to the rule of scandal mongers in general. | de Montfort, Hugh (I1770)
|
| 6785 |
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874........
an undoubted companion of the Conqueror, whose name does not appear in the roll of Battle Abbey, but who is presumed to have been an ancestor of the De Brewers or Briweres, so powerful in the thirteenth century. According to the Book of Meaux and the Register of Fountains Abbey, which I have already quoted, this Drogo was a Fleming of approved valour, who came over to England with William, and received for his services the Isle of Holderness, on which he built the strong Castle of Skipsey, and other considerable estates in various counties, amongst them Bytham in Lincolnshire. By the same authorities he is said to have married a kinswoman of the King, -- how related to him, or how named, is not stated, nor whether her hand had been bestowed upon him as part of the guerdon he had merited. Whoever she was, Drogo killed her -- whether by accident or with malice prepense, does not appear in the indictment. His subsequent conduct, however, was that of a guilty man. He hastened to the King and pretended that he was desirous to take his wife to Flanders; but, not having sufficient money at command for the purpose, craved assistance from his royal connection. The King, not doubting his story, gave or lent to him the sum requested, with which Drogo wisely made the best of his way to the coast, and took ship for the Low Countries. The King on learning the truth sent orders for his arrest, but too late. Drogo was beyond his reach. He lost no time, however, in seizing his estates, some of which he appears to have bestowed on Odo of Champagne, who, according to the same writers, is said to have complained that the soil of Holderness was sterile and would grow nothing but oats; and his wife having presented him with a son, named Stephen, he prayed the Conqueror to give him some land on which he could grow wheat, that he might feed his (William's) nephew; whereupon the King gave him Bytham, another forfeited manor of Drogo's, and other places.
Now, if the story about Drogo be true, the slaying of his wife and flight to Flanders must have taken place late in 1086, for up to August in that year he was in possession of all his estates, and shortly afterwards William quitted England never to see it more. Drogo's personal interview with him must, therefore, have been during the few months that elapsed between the completion of the survey and the King's sailing for Normandy; either at the time of his holding his last great Witan at Salisbury (1st August), to which all the principal landholders in the kingdom were summoned, or while he was subsequently residing in the Isle of Wight, waiting the collection of the money extorted from all against whom he could bring any charge, whether by right or otherwise -- that final robbery of his English subjects, with the booty of which he departed, amid "curses not loud but deep," to die deserted, dishonoured, and despoiled in his native land.
The grant of Holderness to Odo has just the same narrow chance of having been made in England at that period, and the additional one of Bytham a few months later in Normandy, which shows how little reliance can be placed on the story that the complaint respecting the soil of Holderness was made to the King at Odo's request by "the same Archbishop" to whose good offices he had been indebted for the hand of his wife and the city or county of Aumale. Jean de Bayeux died 1079, seven years at least before the grant of Holderness to Odo. Bytham, originally held of the King by Drogo, was probably given to Odo at the same time or shortly afterwards, and was one of the many manors in England with which his son Stephen endowed the monastery of Aumale, he being the first who described himself as "Albemarlensis Comes," his father never assuming that title, but invariably granting or witnessing charters as "Odo de Campania," or "Odonis Comitis de Campania."
Of his step-daughter, the younger Adelaide or Adeliza, Countess of Aumale, we know nothing beyond her confirmation of the grants of her mother and father to the Abbey of St. Martin d'Auchi (or Aumale). She must, however, have died unmarried or without issue, when her rights and title devolved solely upon her half-brother Stephen.
It is most remarkable, considering the position and connections of Adeliza, sister of the Conqueror and Countess of Ponthieu, that the discovery of her triple marriage should have been left to reward the diligence of an English antiquary of the nineteenth century. Every previous account of her and her issue being, from the ignorance of that simple fact, full of errors and contradictions. The date of her death is still unknown; but she was living in 1080, when she witnessed a charter of her aunt Adeliza, sister of Duke Robert II, and died before 1085, her daughter the younger Countess Adeliza having then presumably succeeded to the suzerainty of Aumale, and being the tenant in Domesday. | de Briwere, Drogo (Brogo) (I40236)
|
| 6786 |
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874........
He was the son of Eustace I and Mahaut, daughter of Lambert the Bearded, Count of Louvain, and succeeded his father in or about 1047, being distinguished from him, who was called "l'oeil" (" with the eye") by the sobriquet of "aux Grenons," or "Als Gernons" ("with the whiskers"), the origin of the modern name of Algernon.
In 1050 he married Goda, daughter of Ethelred II, King of England, and widow of Gauthier, Count of Mantes, and in the following year, in the month of September, crossed the Channel from Wissant to Dover, on a visit to his brother-in-law, King Edward the Confessor, who was then at Gloucester. Returning via Canterbury and Dover, one of his attendants killed an inhabitant of the latter place, who had refused him a lodging, and was himself slain by a townsman, who avenged the deed.
The brawl soon swelled into a tumult. The English flew to arms, and attacked the Count and his followers, who fought for their lives, and, fearfully outnumbered, were at length compelled to flee for them. Roger of Wendover says this incident occurred on his first landing at Dover, and that the Count and his followers in their wrath slew a great number of men and women, and trod the children under their horses' feet. William of Malmesbury, who lays the scene at Canterbury, says that Eustace, on hearing of the murder of his servant, proceeded with all his retinue to avenge it, and killed the perpetrator of the crime and eighteen others; that the citizens, flying to arms, he lost twenty-one of his people, and had multitudes wounded (Roger of Wendover says he lost eighty men), himself and one companion with difficulty making their escape in the confusion. King Edward, on hearing from Eustace his account of the circumstances, sent for Earl Godwin, and ordered him to march with sufficient forces into Kent and punish the offenders. The Saxon Earl, jealous of the favour constantly shown to the Normans by King Edward, remonstrated, and subsequently taking up arms, demanded that the Count and Ins followers should be delivered up to him for trial, the affair resulting, after much altercation, in the banishment of Godwin and his family.
Much obloquy has been heaped upon Eustace for his conduct upon this occasion; but large allowance must be made for the bias of the English against the Normans, and save and except the main facts of the affray, the versions of it are too conflicting to enable us at the present day to come to any definite conclusion on the subject.
Returned to his dominions, Count Eustace, in 1053, gave an asylum to William Count of Talou and his family, who had been expelled from Normandy by Duke William, and in 1054 he succeeded his brother Lambert, the second husband of the Duke's sister, in the lordship of Lens, according to the same law which gave the county of Champagne to Thibaut, Count of Blois and Chartres, to the exclusion of Odo, the only child of Lambert being an infant in her cradle.
About the same period the Countess Goda died, whether without issue by Eustace is not satisfactorily settled, and in 1056, after escorting Pope Victor II to Rome from the Council of Cologne, he returned through Lower Lorraine, and paid a visit to its Duke, Geoffrey the Bearded, at Bouillon, where he saw and was captivated by the charms of the Duke's daughter, Ida, and received her hand in marriage, with the castle of Bouillon for her dowry. The nuptials were celebrated at Cambrai in December, 1057, and the second of their three sons was the famous "Godfrey of Bouillon," King of Jerusalem, born in 1060.
In 1066, Count Eustace was one of the French nobles who joined the army of the Conqueror, and of whose presence in the great conflict there can be no doubt. He is not only expressly named by William of Poitiers, and the author of the Latin poem of the battle of Hastings, but his conduct in the fight is particularly described, and he is also personally depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, the almost obliterated name of "Eustatius" over the figure having been detected by that accurate and excellent artist, the late Mr. Stothard.
Wace simply mentions a "Wiestace d'Abevile," in which Monsieur le Prévostt and Mr. Taylor hessssiitate to recognize the Count offf Boulogne,,, inn presence of the fact that both the Counts of Ponthieu and the Counts of Boulogne were occasionally called "of Abbeville." Without, however, contesting this point, there is evidence enough that Eustace II fought at Senlac, where at some period of the action he was grievously wounded. He is said to have advised William at a critical moment to retreat, and not rush upon certain death, counsel which the Conqueror was the last man to listen to. The stratagem of the feigned flight is also said to have been suggested by him, and on the Duke's second horse being killed under him, he dismounted and offered him his own. As darkness fell upon the fatal field, the headlong pursuit of the Normans led to a disaster which might have turned the scale in favour of the English. Unacquainted with the ground, a considerable body of the Norman cavalry, galloping down the north side of the hill of Senlac, suddenly found themselves floundering in a morass, and the flying foe, perceiving their hapless condition, turned upon them and slew the greater number.
The Norman panegyrist of the Conqueror tells us that Count Eustace, imagining that the English had been strongly reinforced, rode back with fifty knights to William, and again advised him to retreat, when at the moment he was speaking he was struck by some one between the shoulder-blades with such violence that the blood gushed from his mouth and nostrils, and he was borne from the field in a dying state. How and by whom such a blow -- a blow which Orderic says was heard -- could be struck at that moment upon that spot, even in the darkness, without the dealer of it being detected, I am at a loss to imagine. The enemy had been driven from that portion of the ground, and Eustace, with fifty knights at his back, was speaking confidentially to the Duke, who was certainly not without his own officers and attendants. They were both on horseback too, and so heavy a blow between the shoulder-blades could only have been dealt with a mace by a mounted man, or by one on foot with the long-handled axe of a Saxon soldier, and in neither case without observation, as the assailant must have been close to him, and could not have escaped instant death. Remember, it was on the summit of the hill, in the open air, with the sky for a background, and the darkness must have been Egyptian if the erect form of a man could escape the observation of so many surrounding friends and followers. If there be any truth in the story, the incident occurred at an earlier period, during the confusion of the fight, in the midst of the mélée, and not at the e e e e e e e e e time stated by ththe w writeter.r.
I have dwelt upon this point because it will be found of importance hereafter.
That Count Eustace was rewarded for his services, whatever they may have been, for they are not particularized, by large grants of land in England there can be little doubt, but he speedily forfeited them by his attempt, in 1067, to seize Dover Castle, at the instigation of the disaffected men of Kent, during William's absence in Normandy; and though many manors were probably restored to him on his subsequent reconciliation with the Conqueror, they cannot at present be distinguished from those which were added to them at a later period, or might have been acquired by his son, Eustace III, who is the tenant recorded in Domesday, and at the time of its compilation was about twenty-seven. The attempt on Dover failed, through the loyalty of the royal garrison and the personal hostility to Eustace entertained by the townsmen from the recollection of the fatal affray in 1051. A vigorous sally on the besiegers compelled them to retreat, and a report that Bishop Odo was advancing with a large force, created a panic that sent them flying in confusion back to their ships, which few of them reached in safety, many being slain, and more taken prisoners, amongst whom William of Poitiers mentions a young nephew of Eustace, of whose name or subsequent fate we have no information.
Eustace himself contrived to escape to his own country, but on the King's return to England in 1068, the Count of Boulogne was outlawed, and his honours and lands in this country forfeited. By what means he regained the favour and friendship of the Conqueror is unknown. William seems never to have thoroughly trusted him, as he took hostages for his good behaviour before the expedition to Hastings, and now, after this overt act of treason, the avowed object of which was to deprive him of his hardly won crown, forgiveness was out of the question, except from motives of that crafty policy which was throughout his life the sole guide of the Conqueror's conduct. What those motives were on this occasion must be left to conjecture, but Eustace was a dangerous neighbour, and owed fealty to Philip l King of France, as well as to William 1, King of England. It was at the instigation of the former over-lord that he had broken with the latter and allied himself with the Kentish insurgents, and William may have thought no price too dear to secure at least his neutrality in prospect of a war with France.
In 1071 he espoused the cause of Richilde and her son, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, and in the February of that year defeated their competitor, Robert the Frison, at Montcassel, and, pursuing him to St. Omer, took him prisoner. On regaining his liberty some few months afterwards, Robert in his turn defeated Eustace, and took him prisoner at the battle of Broqueroie.
Godfrey, the brother of Eustace, Chancellor of France and Bishop of Paris, ransomed him, and Robert, to obtain his alliance, ceded to him the Forest of Bethlo and the Castle of Sperli.
Various dates have been given of his death. One writer placing it in 1065, in which case he could not have fought at Senlac. The "Art de Vérifier les Dates," which denies this and also ttttthe date of 1080,,,,,, givenn by another author, prolongs las existence to 1093; but no authority is quoted, and the probability is in favour of 1080, as the late Sir Henry Ellis cites a charter in winch Ida, the second wife of this Eustace, is described as a widow in 1081. The point is of great importance, because if he did not die till 1093, he must have been the Count Eustace of Boulogne who was implicated in the rebellion against Rufus in 1088 (as stated by the compilers of the great work above mentioned), and also the Count Eustace of Domesday, which I think it is perfectly clear he was not.
The author of "Carmen de Bello," said to have been Guy, Bishop of Amiens, recounts with great gusto a barbarous outrage committed by Eustace and three other knights -- namely, Walter Giffard, Hugh de Montfort, and some one he calls "the heir of Ponthieu" [" Pontivi nobilis hæres"], on the still breathing but mortally-wounded Harold, who, pierced through the right eye by a falling arrow, had sunk in agony at the foot of his standard. One knight thrust his lance through the shield of the dying King, and stabbed him in the breast; another assailant finished the work by striking off his head with his sword: but even this vengeance was not enough; a third pierced the dead body and scattered about the entrails; the fourth coming, it would seem, too late for any more efficient share in the deed, cut off the king's leg as he lay dead!
Mr. Freeman, while reprobating in a proper spirit this "inglorious exploit," accepts it as a matter of fact, though it is not alluded to by any other contemporary, and is partially contradicted by their accounts of the death of Harold.
I place no faith in it whatever. William of Poitiers is silent altogether on the subject; Orderic simply says, "Harold was slain in the first onset." From Wace we receive the earliest account of the fall of the arrow, of Harold's attempting to extract it, and breaking the shaft; of his leaning for support, in his agony, on his shield, and being attacked by two knights, one of wbom struck him down by a blow on the head, and the other, as he attempted to regain his footing, severely wounded him in the thigh, which was cut to the bone; but he honestly adds that by whose arm he was slain he knew not, and never heard. The Bayeux Tapestry corroborates this account. Harold is first depicted with the fatal arrow in his eye, and then prostrate in front of a knight who, as he is attempting to rise (the action is unmistakable) is dealing him a blow on the thigh with his long Norman sword.
William of Malmesbury says that Harold fell from having his brain pierced with an arrow from a distance, and that one of the soldiers with a sword gashed his thigh as he lay prostrate, for which shameful and cowardly action he was branded with ignominy by William and dismissed the service.
Who was this nameless soldier? Certainly not one of the noble and distinguished warriors on whom the Latin libeller has flung his wretched calumnies. Who was the heir of Ponthieu he speaks of? Mr. Freeman says: "Nor are we amazed to find the son of Guy of Ponthieu foremost in showing despite to the man who had once been his father's prisoner." Why? -- what had Harold done to injure Guy of Ponthieu? He was the injured, not the offender! Guy I, Count of Ponthieu, who arrested Harold when thrown upon his coast in 1062, had succeeded his brother Enguerrand II, who was slain before Arques in 1053, and died circa 1100, leaving by his wife Ada, who died before him, an only child, Agnes, married to Robert de Belesme. He is said to have had a son named lvo, whom he had associated with himself in the government, but the boy as well as his inother preceded him to the grave, and the heir of Ponthieu in 1066 was, if not this young lvo -- in which case I give the Bishop joy of his great nephew -- no other than the Bishop himself ! As regards the person who is the especial subject of this memoir, the "cowardly" Eustace Count of Boulogne -- his share in the brutality, whatever it was, can only be brought home to him by some more credible witness than a romancer, who tells us that Duke William slew two thousand English at the battle of Hastings with his own hand ! I have already expressed my doubts about the period of the battle when Eustace received the terrible blow in the back, which caused the blood to burst from his mouth and nostrils and, according to Orderic, to be "borne from the field in a dying state."
If this incident occurred in the heat and confusion of the fight -- and otherwise it appears impossible -- Eustace was not present at the fall of Harold. Under any circumstances, if he were, and had been guilty of one of the dastardly acts the Bishop celebrates, the detestation, deserved or not, which the English seem to have held him in, would have caused them to spread the scandal far and wide. When it is proved to me that an heir to the County of Ponthieu was in the battle, I will reconsider the evidence against the Count of Boulogne. | Eustace, Count of Boulogne II (I36710)
|
| 6787 |
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J.R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874........
Son of Etienne II, Comte de Champagne and Brie, by Adele, supposed to have been a daughter of Richard II, Duke of Normandy, but by which of his wives or mistresses has not been ascertained. Now if such were the fact, Odo was the nephew of Duke Robert, the father of the Conqueror, and consequently first cousin of the latter and of his sister Adelaide or Adeliza, as far as blood was concerned. A marriage with her, therefore, would have been within the prohibited degrees so rigidly construed by the Church of Rome. William of Jumiegrave;ges, who styles him Count of Champagne, says he was nearly allied to King William by consanguinity, being grandson of Maud, daughter to Richard I, Duke of Normandy, wife of Odo, Earl of Blois and Chartres. This assertion is still more unfortunate, for Maud died childless, and Etienne, the father of our Odo, was the son of the Count of Blois' second wife Ermengarde, daughter of Robert I, Count of Auvergne, whom he married in 1020. I therefore deny the maternal descent of Odo from any near relation of William, Duke of Normandy, of whom he has been set down as a kinsman on the above authority only.
Dugdale, who appears to have been perfectly bewildered respecting him, has printed in his Monasticon two accounts, one from the Book of Meaux, an abbey in Holderness, and the other from the Register of Fountains Abbey, which is nearly verbatim, but in one or two instances more explicit.
The story as told in them is as follows: Odo having killed a magnate of his own country, took refuge in the dominions of his kinsman, William, Duke of Normandy, who gave him, through the intercession of the Archbishop of Rouen, his sister for wife, and subsequently bestowed upon him the island (according to the Book of Meaux), the county (according to the Register of Fountains), of Holderness. To the same Archbishop, not named, he is said to have been indebted for the grant of the county "comitatum" (the Register of Fountains reads "civitatem") of Albemarle on condition that he should attend the primate in any expedition with ten knights, and bear his standard before him.
The author of L'Art de Vérifier les Dates, and Père Anselm follow this s s s s s s s s s account, b bubut spepecicify the Archbishop as Jean de Bayeux, who entertained a great friendship for Odo, and, with the consent of the Chapter, bestowed upon him the lands of Aumale on the above-named condition.
Now let us see what light the crucial test of dates flings upon these statements. Etienne, the father of Odo, could not have been born earlier than 1021, and would have been about sixteen or seventeen when he succeeded his father in 1037 as Comte de Champagne and Brie. Allowing that he married before he was of full age, say 1040, Odo must have been a mere child at his death in 1047/8, when he was immediately dispossessed of his inheritance by his uncle, Thibaut III, legally, it would appear, according to the law at that period, which, if the heir to the lordship was not of sufficient age to receive investiture by the ceremony of girding with the sword, authorized the nearest in blood of full age to claim the succession. Sharp practice, it may be said, but still the law, and one, it may be worth remarking, which would justify the rebellions against William in the first years of his rule had he even been legitimate.
At what time Odo took refuge in the Court of William, Duke of Normandy, is not stated, but he must have been a most precocious young swashbuckler if he killed "a magnate of his own country" before he entered his teens, and the loss of his estates would have been quite sufficient to have caused him at a later period to seek his fortune elsewhere, without having killed anyone fairly or foully.
At the time of the invasion of England Odo would have been about five-and-twenty, and what more likely than, having nothing to lose and everything to gain, he should eagerly have volunteered his services to William? But if we are to believe that Odo was indebted to Jean de Bayeux for the hand of his wife and the lands of Aumale, how could he be the "Sire d'Aubemare" who fought at Senlac in 1066, when the said Jean de Bayeux was not elevated to the primacy till after the death of Archbishop Maurilius in 1067?
The labours of Mr. Stapleton before alluded to, and those of the authors of Recherches sur le Domesday, enable us to solve the riddle in the most satisfactory manner. The old Norman Chroniclers state clearly enough that Odo de Champagne was the husband of the Conqueror's sister, though differing as to the fact of her being of the whole or the half blood, but not one of them had the kindness to inform us, if they knew, that the lady had been twice previously married, and had left issue by each husband.
The facts of the case, which have been elicited from the records of the Church of St. Martin d'Auchi (de Alceio), commonly called of Aumale, from its vicinity to the town of that name, are as follows: In or about the year 1000 a castle was built on the river Eu, now known as the Bresle, at the point where it divides the provinces of Normandy and Picardy, by a certain Guerinfroi (Guerinfrides), who also, in 1027, founded in its neighbourhood the Abbey of St. Martin d'Auchi. This Guerinfroi, who was Sire d'Aumale (not Count, as he has been incorrectly called), had an only daughter named Berta, who became the wife of Hugh II, Comte de Ponthieu, and mother by him of Enguerrand, or Ingleram, Sire d'Aumale in right of his mother, who married Adelaide, sister of the Conqueror, and was killed in an ambush at St. Aubin, near Arques, in 1053, leaving an only daughter, named Adelaide after her mother, and having settled on his wife the lands of Aumale in dower. The widow of Enguerrand, being still young, married secondly, and in the first year of her widowhood, Lambert, Count of Lens, in Artois, and brother of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, and had by him a daughter, named Judith, whose hand was given by her uncle, William the Conqueror, to Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland. Count Lambert could scarcely have seen the birth of his child, for he was killed at Lille the following year, in a battle between Baldwin, Count of Flanders, and the Emperor Henry III. A widow for the second time, and still in the prime of life, she married, thirdly, Odo of Champagne, by whom she was the mother of Stephen, who, on the death of his elder sister Adelaide, became the first Comte d'Aumale, or Earl of Albemarle, the Seigneurie having been made a Comte by King William, but upon what occasion and at what time we have no evidence.
The name of Adeliza with the title of "Comitissa de Albemarle" occurs in Domesday, but not that of Odo, which first appears in connection with English transactions in 1088 (1st of William Rufus), when Count Odo and his son Stephen gave the manor and church of Hornsea, in the wapentake of Holderness, to the Abbey of St. Mary of York.
This latter fact also leads to the correction of Orderic Vital's assertion, that King William granted the earldom of Holderness to Odo of Champagne at the same time that he distributed cities and counties with great honours and domains among other lords who had assisted him in the Conquest, viz, in 1070. In the first place, Holderness was not an earldom; and in the second, as late as the completion of Domesday, A.D. 1086, the whole district so named was still part of the honour of Drogo de Brevere, a Fleming who had fought for William at Senlac, and received the greater part of the territory of Holderness amongst other portions of the spoil.
The gift of the lands (Dugdale says, of the city) of Aumale to Odo by the Archbishop of Rouen has also to be explained, for as Jean de Bayeux, if it were he, as stated by the author of L'Art de Vérifier les Dates,,,, wassss not advanced to the primacy before 1067, such donatiooon coouuld not have been made previous to the invasion of England, at which period, and as late as 1086, the city and Castle of Aumale, with such lands as had not been given to the church of Auchi, were in possession of Adeliza, as Lady or Countess of Aumale, the wife, or if she were deceased, the stepdaughter of that very Odo.
It depends therefore entirely upon the date of Odo's marriage, whether it was he who, in 1066, was the "Sire d'Aubemare" (in right of his wife) alluded to by the rhyming chronicler as a combatant in the great battle. The evidence brought to light by the industry of Mr. Stapleton, and published by him in the 23rd vol. of the Archaeologia, supplemented by his letter to the late Sir Charles G. Young, Garter-King-of-Arms, and communicated by the latter to the Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, vol. vi. p. 265, and also set forth by Mr. Stapleton in his notes on the Norman rolls of the Exchequer, has been epitomized by the authors of Recherches sur le Domesday, published in 1842, and it is singular, therefore, that the information of the triple marriage of the Countess of Ponthieu should have escaped the vigilance of Mr. Freeman, who has been led by Mr. Stapleton into the serious error which his later discoveries allowed him to correct, of making Odo the husband of the younger Adelaide, who at the time the record was written had succeeded, as daughter and sole heir of Count Enguerrand, to the "Suzeraineté""" offfff Aumale.....
Whether the expatriated Count of Champagne fleshed his maiden sword at Senlac or not, he appears to have made no mark either for good or for evil in the annals of this country till, misled by ambition, he was induced to join in the conspiracy the collapse of which has given him an unenviable reputation in them.
History is quite silent about him until after the death of the Conqueror, when we are told that Odo found himself embarrassed by his position as a feudatory of William Rufus in England and of Robert Court-heuse in Normandy. He owed allegiance to each; but how could he serve two masters who were at war with one another? He decided in favour of Rufus, and received an English garrison in his Castle of Aumale, which, in conjunction with his son Stephen, he enlarged and strengthened, at the expense of the royal treasury, on the invasion of Normandy by the Red King in 1090.
Five years afterwards, however, he joined in a conspiracy with Robert de Mowbray, William d'Eu, and other disaffected nobles, to depose Rufus and place his own son Stephen d'Aumale upon the throne.
The conspiracy failing in consequence of timely warning having been given to the King, Odo and his son were both arrested, the former thrown into a prison, from which he never emerged alive, and the latter condemned to have his eyes put out; but the piteous prayers of his wife and family, to say nothing of the payment of a considerable sum of money, obtained a remission of his sentence and restoration to liberty. How long Odo lingered in his dungeon is unknown. The exact date of his death is as uncertain as nearly every other part of his history, but it is presumed to have taken place in 1108.
Dugdale says, "the lordships whereof he was possessed, as appears by the Conqueror's Survey, were only these," and he then enumerates certain manors, which, in "the Conqueror's Survey," are distinctly set down as held by Adeliza, Countess of Albemarle, Odo's name, as I have previously stated, not occurring in a single instance throughout the work; but Holderness, he adds, "was not given him till after that Survey." There he is right, as we shall find in the following notice of Drogo de Brevere. | de Blois, Count of Champagne and Brie Eudes (Odo) (I22231)
|
| 6788 |
The Cumans (or Kunok) were originally a Turkic tribe, with whom the Magyars fought during and after the disappearance of the Petcheneg (Besenyö) tribes, on Hungary's Transylvanian border after their conquesttt of the Carpathian basin. They were invited into Hungary to resettle the country after the Mongol raids of 1241-1242 following the battle of Muhi, in return for military service and a number of other privileges, they were granted a large tract of land between the Danube (Duna) and Theiss (Tisza) rivers, today's Nagy- and Kiskunság.. | Princess of the Cumens (I40337)
|
| 6789 |
THE DAMEN FAMILY OF LONG ISLAND NY
Jan Cornelise Damen, was the common ancestor of the DAMEN family. In
1650 he left Bunnik, a village on the Ryn in Utrecht, for Long Island NY,
and married Fytie/Sophia Martens. The surname might be derived from
Demen, a hamlet in North Brabant where Jan most likely lived at one time.
On 29 Apr. 1655 he purchased a house and land adjoining that of Jan
Dirksen's in Brooklyn and by 1677 was keeping a tavern here. On 21 Aug.
1663 he purchased from Cornelis Hendrickse van Eens a farm on the West
side of the road in Flatbush NY. In 1667 he is recorded as a member of
the Reformed Dutch church of Brooklyn hailing from the Wallabocht. He is
on a patent of Brooklyn in 1677 and took the oath of allegiance there in
1687. In 1674 he apparently resided at Norman's Kil, and bought a farm at
Kyckuyt from Claes Claessen Smit. In 1686
he bought the main portion of the farm of Pieter Ceser Alburtis at the
Wallabocht.
He and his wife made a joint will dated 1 Sept. 1680 and probated 20 June
1707. Jan Damen voted at a town meeting in Flatbush NY on 19 Jan. 1703-04
and again on 12 Aug. 1704.
He was one of the signers of a petition in Brooklyn, New York in 1663:
"On the first of March in this year (1663), the following petition was
presented:
'To the Right Hon'ble Director-General and Council of New Netherland:
'Shew with due reverence and respect, the undersigned, neighbors and
inhabitants of the village of Breuckelen [Brooklyn], our Honors' obedient
servants, that there lies convenient to us a certain place near
Breuckelen fit to be erected into a new village, for our advantage, being
a woodland (as we) believe (is) known to your Honors, in which place
there is sufficient accommodation where twenty or thirty persons can have
a suitable place and lot; and as the valleys thereby furnish no nearer
place (than) those adjoining between the 3d and 4th kills, to supply the
cattle with fodder, and is also the nearest spot, therefore we, the
Petitioners, are under the necessity of turning to your Honors, humbly
praying and soliciting that the aforesaid requested place
may be granted to them, each his lot, as the valleys in the hay season
be far from here, and they seek the nearest, in order to bring in the
grass dry and in good condition (with God's blessing), for the
preservation of the cattle, and all that is annexed thereto, that
appertains to the farmers. Awaiting, therefore, a favorable answer, if
your Honors the Director-General and Council, in your wise discretion,
shall vouchsafe to grant the same, we remain your Honors' obedient
servants.
SOURCES:"REGISTER OF THE EARLY SETTLERS OF KINGS COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NY
from its First Settlement by Europeans to 1700" by Teunis G. Bergen, 1973
pp 83-84;
ibid: pp 10, 51
"A History of the City of Brooklyn; including the Old Town and Village of
Brooklyn, the Town of Bushwick and the Village and City of Williamsburgh"
by Stiles, 1867, V. I, II, III pp 119-120.
"Revised History of Harlem: Its Origins and Early Annals..."James T. Riker
"Early Settlers of Bushwick Long Island, New York and Their Descendants"
Vol. 3, compiled by Andrew J. Provost Jr. 1955: pp 2, 24, 41
"Records of the Reformed Protestant Church at Flatbush" on microfilm
#0017663
"Utrecht Farmers in New Netherland" from M.S.F. Kemp's "Krommerijenrs in
de nieuew wereld" as edited and translated by John H. van Schaick, in the
New York Genealogical and Biographical Record of January 1996 vol 127, #1
and April 1996. | Damen, Jan Cornelius (I12526)
|
| 6790 |
The death notice/obituary of her son George Pancake mentions that he had a half-brother, John Horton, and a half-sister, Miss Harriett Horton, both of Macy, Indiana. | Sharp, Nancy Jane (I58536)
|
| 6791 |
The death of Edmund Ironside so soon after his peace treaty with Canute has always been suspicious. Although the offcial story was that he died of natural cuases, at least one chronicler claimed that he was murdered. The assassin apparently hid under the king's privy and, when the king came to relieve himself, he was stabbed twice up through the bowels. He is the only king believed to have been murdered on the toilet, though George II also died (of a heart attack) while going to the lavatory. | King of England Edmund II "Ironside" (I13723)
|
| 6792 |
The earl had another dau., whose legitimacy is questionable, namely, Amicia, * m. to Ralph de Mesnilwarin, justice of Chester, "a person," says Dugdale, "of very ancient family," from which union the Mainwarings, of Over Peover, in the co. Chester, derive. Dugdale considers Amicia to be a dau. of the earl by a former wife. But Sir Peter Leicester, in his Antiquities of Chester, totally denies her legitimacy. "I cannot but mislike," says he, "the boldness and ignorance of that herald who gave to Mainwaring (late of Peover), the elder, the quartering of the Earl of Chester's arms; for if he ought of right to quarter that coat, then must he be descended from a co-heir to the Earl of Chester; but he was not; for the co-heirs of Earl Hugh married four of the greatest peers in the kingdom."
* Upon the question of this lady's legitimacy there was a long paper war between Sir Peter Leicester and Sir Thomas Mainwaring---and eventually the matter was referred to the judges, of whose decision Wood says, "a tan assize held at Chester, 1675, the controversy was decided by the justices itinerant, who, as I have heard, adjudged the right of the matter to Mainwaring." [Sir Bernard Burke, Dormant and Extinct Peerages, Burke's Peerage, Ltd., London, 1883, pp. 365-6, Meschines, Earls of Chester] | de Meschines, Amicia (I37006)
|
| 6793 |
The earliest notice of this family occurs in the time of Henry I, when Gilbert Mareschall, and John, his son, were impleaded by Robert de Venoix and William de Hastings for the office of Mareschal to the king, but without success. The son, (bearing the same surname, derived from his office), was called John Mareschall. [Sir Bernard Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages, Burke's Peerage, Ltd., London, 1883, p. 357, Marshal, Barons Marshal | FitzRobert, Gilbert "The Marshall" (I36740)
|
| 6794 |
The earliest valid documentation of a YANCEY is found on a list of landowners called a Quit Rent Roll. In 1704 Charles Yancey is listed on the Quit Rent Roll for King William County, Virginia owning 100 acres. The actual relationship of this Charles to the immigrant brothers is not clear. However, if the story of the brothers is true, he would most likely be a grandson to one of the five. Most researchers are also in agreement that around 1704, a Charles Yancey married Miss Bartlett. Some sources record her name as Mary. It would seem that Charles and Mary continued living in the area that would later become Hanover and Louisa Counties, formed in 1720 and 1742 respectively. These counties were formed from New Kent and King William Counties. One source records their marriage on January 14, 1704, although no known documentation exists to support this claim.
Family tradition has it that Charles of King William County was the son of an earlier Charles Yancey and his wife Mary Leighton. It has also been reported that Mary Leighton was thought to be a descendant of Alexander Leighton who was cruelly persecuted for his religious teachings. However, after centuries of searching, no evidence has been found to confirm or even support the above information. It should not be considered true until such documentation is discovered.
In 1722 Charles of King William County and his wife Mary Bartlett lived and owned land between North Anna and Little River. Charles later received land grants totaling 448 acres in Hanover County. These grants were issued on behalf of King George II between 1725 and 1730. The last date Charles was known to be alive was 1745 when he deeded a negro slave to his son Robert. No will has ever been found for Charles but it is believed he died shortly after the deed of 1745. There has been very little information recorded about Mary Bartlett. No birth or death dates are known for her.
Sources:
1. Marriage date and location from IGI (International Genealogical Index), but no recorded documentation is known to exist to verify this information.
2. The Early Yanceys in America by Dennis J. Yancey
3. The Name and Family of Yanc(e)y; Compiled by the Media Research Bureau, Washington, D.C. | Yancey, Charles (I6183)
|
| 6795 |
The Evergreens Cemetery Brooklyn Kings County New York, USA Plot: Church Hill, Lot 94, Grave 2 | Abel, Peter (I69932)
|
| 6796 |
The Family Group Archive submitted by Mazel Pancake gives 1887 as Fern's year of birth, however the 1900 and 1910 census support 1889 as the correct year.
Was living in Macy, Miami Co., Indiana at the time of her brother George's death in 1935. | Pancake, Fern Madrid (I58670)
|
| 6797 |
The first mentioned of the sons of Noah (Gen. 5:32; 6:10). He was probably the eldest of Noah's sons. The words "brother of Japheth the elder" in Gen. 10:21 are more correctly rendered "the elder brother of Japheth," as in the Revised Version. Shem's name is generally mentioned first in the list of Noah's sons. He and his wife were saved in the ark (7:13). Noah foretold his preeminence over Canaan (9:23-27). He died at the age of six hundred years, having been for many years contemporary with Abraham, according to the usual . The Israelitish nation sprang from him (Gen. 11:10-26; 1 Chr. 1:24-27). | Shem (I36626)
|
| 6798 |
The first of this family that settled in England was Simon de Montfort, surnamed the Bald, great grandson of Almaric, an illegitimate son of Robert, * King of France. Which Simon having m. Amicia, one of the two sisters and co-heirs of Robert de Bellemont, or Beaumont, surnamed Fitz-Parnel, 4th and last Earl of Leicester of that family, obtained a grant of the Earldom of Leicester from King John, with a confirmation of the Stewardship of England, which he acquired by the possession of the honor of Hinkley, a portion of the immense fortune of his wife. But notwithstanding these marks of royal favor, the earl, within a brief period, revolted from the King of England to the King of France, for which act of treason the Earldom of Leicester was transferred to Ranulph, Earl of Chester, the honors of Hinkley seized upon by the crown, and de Montfort himself banished the realm. Soon after this (1209), we find him under the title of Earl of Montfort, general of the crusade against the Albigenses, and in nine years subsequently a leader in the besieging arms of Lewis, King of France, before the walls of Toulouse where he was slain by a slinger from the battlements. His lordship had two sons by the co-heiress of Beaumont, namely, Almaric and Simon.
*Thus, Robert, King of France.
Almaric, who had the town of Montfort by gift of his royal father and thence assumed that surname.
Simon de Montfort.
Almaric, Earl of Montfort, father of Simon, [the subject of this sketch].
[Sir Bernard Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited and Extinct Peerages, Burke's Peerage Ltd, London, England, 1883, p. 376, Montfort, Earls of Leicester]
********************************* *********************************************************************
note: it was Simon's father (also Simon) who married Amicia de Bellemont as his 2nd wife and mother of this Simon.
********************************* *********************************************************************
----------
Simon de Montfort, b. 1165?--d. June 25, 1218, Toulouse, Fr., French leader of the Albigensian Crusade declared by Pope Innocent III against the Cathari, an unorthodox religious group in southern France.
In 1190 Montfort married Alice de Montmorency (died 1221). During the Fourth Crusade (1202-04) he participated in the siege of Zara and later fought in Syria. Beginning in 1209 he led the fight against the Cathari (better known as Albigenses after the town of Albi) in a crusade that quickly became a war of conquest by the northern French against the nobility of the south. Having conquered Bziers and Carcassonne, he was chosen to govern those lands. When most of the crusaders departed after the 40-day term they had promised to serve, he was left with large territories still to conquer. After he had won the important Battle of Muret in 1213, the lands of Raymond VI, count of Toulouse, were adjudged to Montfort by the fourth Lateran Council (1215) because of Raymond's failure to root out heretics. He now styled himself count of Toulouse, viscount of Bziers and Carcassonne, and duke of Narbonne, but Raymond did not accept defeat. He occupied Toulouse in September 1217. Montfort was killed while besieging the city. His son Amaury (died 1241) soon abandoned the crusade and ceded the Montfort lands in southern France to King Louis VIII. [Encyclopedia Britannica CD '97] | de Montfort, Count of Toulouse, Earl of Leicester, Viscount of Carcassonne, Duke of Narbonne Simon 5th Earl of Leicester IV (I8782)
|
| 6799 |
The first of this great family that settled in England was Roger Bigod who, in the Conqueror's time, possessed six lordships in Essex and a hundred and seventeen in Suffolk, besides divers manors in Norfolk. This Roger, adhering to the party that took up arms against William Rufus in the 1st year of that monarch's reign, fortified the castle at Norwich and wasted the country around. At the accession of Henry I, being a witness of the king's laws and staunch in his interests, he obtained Framlingham in Suffolk as a gift from the crown. We find further of him that he founded in 1103, the abbey of Whetford, in Norfolk, and that he was buried there at his decease in four years after, leaving, by Adeliza his wife, dau. and co-heir of Hugh de Grentesmesnil, high steward of England, a son and heir, William Bigod, steward of the household of King Henry I.[Sir Bernard Burke, Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited, and Extinct Peerages, Burke's Peerage, Ltd., London, 1883, p. 53, Bigod, Earls of Norfolk]
Roger Bigod was one of the tight-knit group of second-rank Norman nobles who did well out of the conquest of England. Prominent in the Calvados region before 1064 as an under-tenant of Odo of Bayeux, he rose in ducal and royal service to become, but 1086, one of the leading barons in East Anglia, holding wide estates to which he added Belvoir by marriage and Framlingham by grant of Henry I. His territorial fortune was based on his service in the royal household, where he was a close adviser and agent for the first three Norman kings, and the propitious circumstances of post-Conquest politics. Much of his honor in East Anglia was carved out of lands previously belonging to the dispossessed Archbishop Stigand, his brother Aethelmar of Elham, and the disgraced Earl Ralph of Norfolk and Suffolk. Under Rufus --- if not before --- Roger was one of the king's stewards. Usually in attendance on the king, he regularly witnessed writs but was also sent out to the provinces as a justice or commissioner. Apart from a flirtation with the cause of Robert Curthose in 1088, he remained conspicuously loyal to Rufus and Henry I, for whom he continued to act as steward and to witness charters. The adherence of such men was vital to the Norman kings. Through them central business could be conducted and localities controlled. Small wonder they were well rewarded. Roger established a dynasty which dominated East Anglia from the 1140s, as earls of Norfolk, until 1306. Roger's byname and the subsequent family name was derived from a word (bigot) meaning double-headed instrument such as a pickaxe: a tribute, perhaps to Roger's effectiveness as a royal servant; certainly an apt image of one who worked hard both for his masters and for himself. [Who's Who in Early Medieval England, Christopher Tyerman, Shepheard-Walwyn, Ltd., London, 1996]
ROGER LE BIGOD
The Conqueror and His Companions
by J. R. Planché, Somerset Herald. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874..
The owner of this great historical name, who accompanied the Conqueror to England, was apparently the son of Robert le Bigod, the first of the name of whom we have any notice, and who was a witness to the foundation of St. Philibert-sur-Risle, in 1066. Wace, in his enumeration of the leaders in the host at Hastings, designates the member of this family simply as the ancestor of Hugh le Bigot, Lord of Maletot, Loges, and Canon.
"L'Ancestre Hue le Bigot
Ki avoit terre a Maletot,
Etais Loges et a Chanon."
Roman de Rou, I. 1377.
Maletot is near Caen, Canon (Chanon) is in the arrondissement of Lisieux, and Loges may have been either Les Loges, near Aunay, or another commune of the same name in the neighbourhood of Falaise. (Le Prévost: Notes too Le Rom. de Rou, vol. ii, p. 256.) The possession of these lands in Normandy by "the ancestor of Hugh le Bigot" is a curious fact, taken into consideration with the account the monk of Jumièges gives of thiss ancestor. Robert le Bigod, he tells us, was a knight in the service of William Werlenc, or the Warling, Comte de Mortain, and so poor that he prayed his lord to permit him to go and seek his fortune in Apulia, where his countrymen were establishing themselves and acquiring wealth and dignity under the leadership of Robert Guiscard. The Count bade him remain, assuring him that within eighty days he (Robert) would be in a position to help himself to whatever he desired in Normandy.
Whether the Count contemplated the deposition of Duke William, or was privy to the design of others, may never be known, but Robert le Bigod, inferring from this advice that some rebellious movement was projected, repaired to Richard Goz, Vicomte of the Hiemois, who was at that moment highly in favour with the Duke, and requested him to obtain an audience for him. Richard, who, according to the same authority, was a kinsman of Robert -- it would be interesting to learn how -- readily complied, and Le Bigod having repeated to the Duke the words of the Warling, the latter was instantly summoned to attend him, accused of treason, banished the country, and the Comté of Mortain was bestowed upon the Duke'ss half-brother Robert, the son of Herleve by Herluin. That William jumped at this opportunity to rid himself of a possible competitor whose claim to the duchy was clearly stronger than his own, and at the same time to advance one of his own family who would have no such pretensions, there can be no doubt. The truth or falsehood of the story told to him by Robert le Bigod has never been established. The defence of the accused, if he made any, has not been recorded; and even Mr. Freeman admits that the Duke's "justice, if justice it was, fell so sharply and speedily as to look very like interested oppression." (Norm. Conq., vol. ii., p. 290.) We have seen in the previous notice of Raoul de Gael what opinion was held in his own days of this suspicious act of the Conqueror. From that moment Robert le Bigod became a confidential servant of his sovereign, and his son Roger was the companion of the Conqueror, who for his services at Senlac received large grants of land in the counties of Essex and Suffolk, six lordships in the former and one hundred and seventeen in the latter.
Mons le Prévost remarks that Wace, always inclined to treat the presentt as the past, has attributed to Roger the office of seneschal, which was only enjoyed by his second son William. With all deference, I think the learned antiquary has misunderstood his author. Wace is not speaking of Roger le Bigod, the father of Hugh and William, but of "the ancestor of Hugh," Robert, as I take it, "who served the Duke in his house as one of his seneschals, which office he held in fee."
Mr. Taylor remarks that there is no authority for this statement, yet we find that Roger, who was one of the privy councillors and treasurer of the Duke, was seneschal or steward to Henry I, after the decease of his father, and that both William and Hugh, his sons, succeeded each other in that high office, which is a fair corroboration of the assertion that it was held in fee. If Wace be in error it is in his intimation, as I understand him, that it was Hugh's grandfather Robert, and not his father, Roger, who accompanied Duke William to Hastings.
As we have no means at present of ascertaining the age of Robert when he accused his lord of treason, it is not improbable that he, as well as his son Roger, was at Senlac. The latter survived the Conquest forty-three years, and may have been a young man in 1066, and his father not too old to bestride a war steed and lead his retainers into action. Whether father or son, we are told that "he had a large troop, and was a noble vassal. He was small of body, but very brave and daring, and assaulted the English with his mace gallantly." (Roman de Rou, I. 13, 682-87.) We hear nothing of him during the reign of the first William, but at the commencement of that of the second, Roger le Bigod is found amongst the adherents of Robert Court-heuse, fortifying his castle at Norwich and laying waste the country round about: whether eventually reconciled to Rufus, or what was the result of the suppressed rebellion to him personally, we are without information; but in the first year of the reign of Henry I, being one of those who stood firm to the King, he had Framlingham, in Suffolk, of his gift.
In 1103, by the advice of King Henry, Maud the Queen, Hubert Bishop of Norwich, and his own wife, the Lady Adeliza, one of the daughters and co-heirs of Hugh de Grentmesnil, seneschal of England, he founded the Abbey of Thetford, in the county of Norfolk, and, dying in 1107, was buried there.
By the Lady Adeliza he is said to have had seven children -- William, his son and heir, who by his charter, confirming his father's gift to Thetford, informs us that he was "Dapifer regis Anglorum;" 2. Hugh le Bigod, the first earl; 3. Richard; 4. Geoffrey; 5. John; 6. Maud, wife of William de Albini Pincerna; and 7. Gunnora, who married, first, Robert of Essex, and, secondly, Hamo de Clare. William perished in the fatal wreck of the White Ship, and Hugh, his brother and heir, in his turn steward of the King's household, was eventually created Earl of Norfolk; his descendants, by a match with Maud, the eldest daughter and co-heiress of the Marshals, Earls of Pembroke, becoming marshals of England, an office enjoyed to this day by the Dukes of Norfolk.
The name and origin of this family, Mr. Taylor remarks, seem more worthy of consideration than has hitherto been given to it. (Notes to Rom. de Rou, p. 230.) The name is spelt indifferently Bigod, Bigot, Bihot, Vigot, Wigot, Wihot, and Wigelot, generally with the prefix of "le." The Normans are represented by the French to be "Bigoz and Dranchiers;" the latter term is understood to mean consumers of barley -- perhaps beer-drinkers -- and the former presumed to have been given them from their constantly taking the name of the Almighty in vain. Anderson, in his "Genealogical Tables," says, without quoting his authority, that Rollo was styled "Bygot," from his frequent use of the phrase. This derivation receives some support from the well
TWO PAGES MISSING (one sheet)
Poitevin, "le Scot," &c., and in this category I think we may class "le Vigot," an abbreviation of "le Visigot," spelt, as we find it, indifferently with a "B" or a "W" (Bigot and Wigot), according to the particular dialect of the writers. The application of the name to the Normans generally, while it proves that it was not derived from any hereditary possession or personal peculiarity, as in other cases, also testifies to the purity of the family, which was distinguished amongst its own people by the designation of that great Gothic stock whence they commonly proceeded. A signet ring was dug up some few years ago on one of the estates in Norfolk which had belonged to this family, exhibiting the figure of a goat, with the word "By" above it, being a punning device or rebus "By Goat." It is engraved in Mr. Taylor's translation of the Roman de Rou (p. 235, note), but of the legend round it the word "God" is alone distinguishable. This, however, is merely a mediaeval curiosity of no importance to the question of derivation. To settle that question we must learn to labour and to wait. | Bigod, Earl of East Anglia Roger (I36673)
|
| 6800 |
The first reference to Catelyntje is in 1660, when she witnessed the
baptism of her sister Jannetie's son John, and the next in 1668 in the
same connection for her nephew Assudius Harberding.
Source: Mention in will of John Harberdinck, Abstracts of Wills, Liber 9,
p.440 | Van Kleeck, Cartelijntie Barents (I4544)
|
|
|
