Dear Douglas;
I hope the following will help.
In a message Douglas Richardson Dec 1, 2:19 pm writes convincingly
with documentation which supports Keats-Rohan�s reconstruction. In the
message below I offer suggestions that may assist him in completing his
story of this family.
<<Dear Newsgroup ~ In my previous post, I observed that Gospatric Fitz
Orm's father, Orm Fitz Ketel, and Orm's alleged father, Ketel Fitz
Eldred, appeared to be the same approximate age. I based this on the
fact that Orm Fitz Ketel was an adult in 1094, and had a wife,
Gravelda, born in or before 1075, whereas Ketel Fitz Eldred doesn't
show up until in the 1120's, when he appears with a wife, Christian,
and son, William. I also observed that Ketel Fitz Eldred's charters
make no mention of his alleged son, Orm Fitz Ketel, or his alleged
grandson, Gospatric Fitz Orm. I stated my belief that Ketel Fitz
Eldred and Orm Fitz Ketel would obviously not be father and son.>>
<<It's possible that Ketel, living in 1066, is the father of Orm Fitz
Ketel, living in 1094. However, this may be difficult to prove.>>
In my message ***@aol.com Nov 26, 4:50 pm I suggested a
modification to Keats-Rohan�s reconstruction. That Ketel FitzEldred
was the product of Eldred�s first marriage while his half sister was
the product of his second marriage to Beatrice de Taillebois. The
documentation for the first marriage was rejected by the newsgroup as
secondary with no original documentation. However, Todd A. Farmerie in
message Nov 27, 9:38 pm observed:
<<Dix Preston suggested an alternative that I had thought of, as a
possibility, as well. This has some things to recommend it, putting
Godith a generation after Ketel as progeny of a late second marriage,
and likewise giving William a descent from Ivo, explaining his
apparent use of the Taillebois name. However, at its heart, it too is
missing critical documentary support.>>
In any event, if Ketel was born almost a generation before his half
sister this would explain Douglas� concern whether Ketel, living in
1066, is the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living in 1094. I would suggest
that Ivo�s lands descended through his daughter Beatrice to her
daughter Goditha and to Goditha and Gilbert�s son William de Lancaster
I. Ketel as son of Eldred would have inherited Workington and surrounds
as Douglas� observes:
<<Regardless, Ketel, living 1066, may also have been the original owner
of Workington and Lamplugh, Cumberland. If so, perhaps some record of
him can be found in that county.>>
Ketel FitzEldred, son of first wife unknown, born say 1045-1050, his
son Orme FitzKetel born say 1075 which matches Gospatric I�s daughter
Gunnilda, or however her name was spelled, born before 1075. [Douglas
Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm ] Eldred m. second, Beatrice, daughter of
Ivo, [Ivo and Eldred appear to be contemporaneous] born say 1050-1055
suggests this half sister of Ketel, Goditha born say 1075-1080 who
married Gilbert of Lancaster and were parents of William who became de
Lancaster I.
This would make Orme FitzKetel, living 1066, of the same generation as
Beatrice his father�s second wife. This would make Gospatric FitzOrme,
who you date say 1110 [Douglas Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm] of the
same generation as William de Lancaster I. Thomas FitzGospatric who
you dated say 1130/5, [Douglas Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm] would be of
the same generation as William de Lancaster II. Then Patrick de Culwen
[FitzThomas], his sister Aline Fitz Thomas, born say 1160/5, living
1219, married William de Furness (or Fleming), he was of age before
1164. [Douglas Richardson Nov 28, 3:16 pm ] and Hawise de Lancaster
are all of the same generation.
<<In conclusion, I find that Dr. Keats-Rohan has constructed a very
sound pedigree for the Taillebois-Ketel Fitz Eldred-Lancaster family.
My research proves that Ketel Fitz Eldred's heir was his nephew, Wlliam
de Lancaster I, through whom William inherited the Taillebois lands. I
differ with Keats-Rohan only in that I find that Ketel Fitz Eldred,
living 1120's, was not the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living 1094. If
anything, Orm Fitz Ketel was slightly older than Ketel Fitz Eldred.
They were, however, near related to one another.>>
I respectfully disagree only with the conclusion < I differ with
Keats-Rohan only in that I find that Ketel Fitz Eldred, living 1120's,
was not the father of Orm Fitz Ketel, living 1094.> given my scenario
above. While I have no documentation to prove my thesis, the
chronology, which I know you value, fits.
In all of Ketel�s reaffirmations of Ivo�s gifts found in Farrer there
is no statement that he was grandson of Ivo. However, his half sister
was Ivo�s daughter and apparently there was no male heir of Eldred and
Beatrice�s marriage. If this is the case, it would not be unexpected
for Ketel son of Eldred to assume the roll of �caretaker� of his
sister�s lands until her son William, who became William de Lancaster
I, came of age thus accounting for Ketel FitzEldred�s affirming of
Ivo�s gifts.
Finally, I address your concerns:
<<I might further add that had Gospatric Fitz Orm been the grandson and
heir of Ketel Fitz Eldred, he would have inherited the Taillebois
estates, not William de Lancaster I.>>
<<While Keats-Rohan acknowledges that William de Lancaster I was Ketel
Fitz Eldred's nephew, she provides no explanation as to how he came to
hold Ives Taillebois' lands.>>
<<So who then held the Taillebois properties between 1097 and 1130?>>
Farrer deals with this in his Introduction to Vol I Records of Kendale,
excerpted below, which can be found either in the book or at internet
site http://www.edenlinks.co.uk/RECORDS/FAR/INTRO.HTM
*Ivo TAILLEBOIS died about 1097. His widow, Lucy, daughter of Thorold
of Angers, or the Angevin, the first founder of Spalding abbey, married
Roger FITZ-GEROLD. From the possession of land in Westmarieland by the
Roumares, who were the descendants of Roger FITZ-GEROLD, it might be
inferred that he had an interest in Kentdale, in succession to Ivo
TAILLEBOIS. If so, no evidence of this has been discovered. It is safer
to infer that the crown resumed possession of Kentdale after the death
of Ivo and that Henry I gave the whole territory, except Warton and its
members, to Nigel de AUBIGNY, who probably received at the same time
Sedbergh, Thornton in Lonsdale, Burton in Lonsdale, Bentham, Clapham,
Austwick and Horton in Ribblesdale, besides several manors in Craven.
The next even of importance to this region was the grant by Henry I,
about the year 1114, to his nephew Stephen of Blois, of the whole honor
of Lancaster, late the possession of Roger, count of Poitou, who had
incurred forfeiture in 1102. By this grant Warton with its members,
Cartmel and Cartmel Fells, Furness and Furness Fells, came into the
possession of Stephen with all the rest of the lands in Lonsdale,
Amounderness and Twixt Ribble and Mersey that eventually comprised the
county of Lancaster.
Not one single document has survived to illustrate the tenure of
Kentdale by Nigel de AUBIGNY. He died in 1129, leaving his son, the
future Roger de MOWBRAY, a youth of 10 or 11 years, as heir to his vast
estates. In 1130 these lands were in the king's hands by reason of
wardship, but Kentdale is not mentioned in the Pipe Roll of that year,
although Burton in Lonsdale and other estates of Roger de MOWBRAY are
named therein. At that time Westmarieland was in the king's hands,
presumably by surrender of Ranulf MESCHIN in 1120, when he succeeded to
the earldom of Chester. But not all Westmarieland is accounted for in
the Pipe Roll, for the farm of the demesnes of that region was returned
as of no more than �29 4s. yearly value, and in regard to Noutgeld we
can only say, owing to defects in the document, that �43 was paid into
the Treasury and an undecipherable amount left owing. It is a
reasonable assumption from these figures that Kentdale was not then a
part of the crown estate of Westmarieland.
We now come to the difficult period which covered the reign of Stephen.
Fortunately we possess distinct and clear evidence that Stephen, as
king, enfeoffed a knight of the lands of Warton in Kentdale and the
wide territory of Garstang, Lancashire, to hold for the service of one
knight. This was William de LANCASTER, so on Gilbert by Godith his
wife, ( Farrer, Lancs. Pipe R., 392.) described in the Inquest of
service made in 1212 as "Willelmus filius Gilberti primus," (Book of
Fees, (P.R.O.), 206.) that is, the first to be enfeoffed of that fee.
About the same time Roger de MOWBRAY, who was of age about the year
1140, enfeoffed the same William of all the grantor's land of Lonsdale,
Kentdale and Horton in Ribblesdale, to hold by the service of four
knights. (Illustrative Documents, No. II in the Appendix.) The date of
the charter is indeterminate, but it was certainly issued during the
period 1145-1154. It did not continue effective for very long.
During the greater part of Stephen's reign, Cumberland, Westmarieland,
and probably Kentdale and Lancashire as far south as the Ribble, were
in the hands of David of Scotland. A few of his charters of
confirmation of this period relating to these regions have come down to
us in monastic chartularies. (Prescott, Register of Wetherhal, n. 198;
Lancs. Pipe R., 274-5.) Whilst under his rule all Westmarieland was
granted to Hugh de MOREVILL, whom Sir Archibald C. LAWRIE describes as
David's "life-long friend." (Early Scottish Charters, 273.) He was
constable of Scotland during the latter part of David's life. When
Henry II came to the throne, in 1154, it is certain that Westmarieland
was in Morevill's hands and with it the lordship over the greater part
of Kentdale. At that time William de LANCASTER no longer held anything
in Kentdale of Roger de MOWBRAY; but he appears to have held his lands
in Westmarieland and Kentdale of Morevill by rendering Noutgeld of �14
6s. 3d. per annum, and some 16 carucates of land in nine vills in
Kentdale as farmer under Morevill. In 1166 William de LANCASTER I held
only 2 knight's fees, of the new feoffment of Roger de MOWBRAY in
Sedbergh, Thornton, Burton in Lonsdale, and the other places in
Yorkshire previously named, which his descendants held long after of
the fee of Mowbray by the same service. The Mowbray connexion with
Kentdale had come to an end upon the accession of Henry II, who placed
Hugh de MOREVILL in possession of Westmarieland in return, possibly,
for past services an din pursuance of the policy of planting his
favourites in regions of great strategic importance. Probably the
change of paramount lord had little, if any, effect on the position of
William de LANCASTER in Kentdale.*
Finally, Farrer concludes *After a careful review of the evidence which
has been sketched above, the author is of opinion that no barony or
reputed barony of Kentdale existed prior to the grants of 1189-90; and
that neither William de LANCASTER, son of Gilbert, nor William de
LANCASTER II, his son and successor, can be rightly described as
"baron" of Kentdale. It is certain that whilst Westmarieland was in the
hands of Hugh de MOREVILL by grant of Henry II down to Michaelmas,
1176, when it was taken into the king's hands, the Noutgeld of �14 6s.
3d. due yearly by William de LANCASTER I and afterwards by his son,
William de LANCASTER II, was paid to Hugh de MOREVILL and received by
him as part of the issues of Westmarieland. In 1178 and 1179 the entire
Noutgeld of Westmarieland and Kentdale was �55 19s. 3d., in which sum
was undoubtedly included �14 6s. 3d. due from the lands of William de
LANCASTER II in Kentdale and Westmarieland. In addition to Noutgeld a
farm of �8 18s. 2d. for the 16 carucates in Kentdale, and �5 for the
fishery of Kentdale, were similarly paid until Michaelmas, 1176, by the
lord of Kentdale to Hugh de MOREVILL. It appears therefore improbable,
if not impossible, that Kentdale was held by barony prior to 1190. This
it was a barony after that date is proved by the following entry on the
Pipe Roll for "Lancastre" of 5 Henry III (1221):*
Nigel Barker in a message GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives; Subject: Re: Ivo and
Lucy Talybois Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998. wrote:
<<*VICTORIA HISTORY OF LANCASHIRE VOL I pp35
Notes from passage on the family of Lancaster, Barons of Kendal
[The origin of the family is obscure.]
[Small landholder within the Barony of Coupland.]
[Granted land by William Meschine when he was granted his fief by Henry
I.]
"The first recorded member is little mentioned beyond the bare fact
that his name was Gilbert and his wife's name was Godith (Lancs Fines
Rec Soc XXXIX 61). To this the monkish chroniclers have added the
fiction that he was the son of Ketel, son of Eldred, son of Ivo
Taillebois (Mon Angl iii 553 & Cockersands Cartulary, Chethem Soc (New
Series) xxxix 305), whereas he was almost, if not quite, contemporary
with Ivo, by whom
Gilbert and his predecessor was probably enffeoffed of those manors
within the Barony of Westmoreland which his descendants, the barons of
Kendal, where chief lords. (Gilbert fitz Reinford & Helewise his wife
confirmed some of Ivo's grants to the Abbey of St. Mary, York (Mon Ang
iii 566))
The connection which existed between the heirs of Ketel, son of Eldred,
namely the Curwens of Workington, and the Lancasters, of whom the
former held several manors in Cumberland and Westmoreland, was probably
of tenure rather than consanguinity. Intimately connected with this
subject is a charter, of which an ancient transcript is preserved at
Levens Hall, by which Roger de Mawbury grants to William son of Gilbert
de Lancaster,in fee and inheritance, "all my land of Lonsdale, and of
Kendal, and Horton in Ribblesdale, to hold by the service of 4 knights
(Reg of Deeds at Levens Hall f79, Lancs Pipe Reg 389). It would be
interesting to discuss the question as to whether this charter
represents an original grant or merely a confirmation of a much older
infeudation.
William son of Gilbert was the first to be enfeoffed of land in
Lancaster. In 1212 he is described as "Willelmus filiuus Gibberti
premus". He is not always described as "de Lancaster" for which it may
be inferred that he was the first of his line to be associated with the
Court and its Lords. The Mon. Chronicle to which allusion has already
been made tells us that he caused himself to be called "de Lancaster"
by the King's Licence, and to be styled before the King in Parliament
(sic) "William de Lancaster, Baron Kendal". The same Chronicle states
that he married Gundreda, formerly Countess of Warwick, whose husband,
Roger de Newburgh, died in 1153.
William de Lancaster died in or after 1170. Et seq. Nigel Barker*
Douglas, I hope the above will assist you in this matter. I am quite
convinced that Keats-Rohan�s reconstruction and your documentation
support is correct except for my suggestion that Ketel and his sister
are a generation apart which makes the chronology fit even though I
have no proof.
Respectfully,
Dix Preston