Page images
PDF
EPUB

money to have the office of his father, then recently deceased. This John's son John, and his brother and heir, William, created Earl of Pembroke, were successively sheriffs for the united counties of Surrey and Sussex, in which latter county they owned considerable property. Gilbert Norman also filled the same office,' and died in 1130; 2 this date would just accord with the date of the death of Gilbert le Marshall. Might not then these two individuals be the same? Most, if not all, of the families bearing the name of Norman, bore leopards' heads and fleurs de lis. William Fitz-Norman occurs in Domesday as a Sussex proprietor, also in other counties. Hugh Fitz-Norman, alias de Mara, occurs also in Cheshire. William de Mara was witness to the above-mentioned charter of "John, son of Gilbert." Assuming the identity in question, what would be the results, affecting the general inquiry, of discovering that Gilbert Norman was of the family of the Fitz-Normans alias De Mara? Would

it be found consistent further to assume that Gilbert Norman was brother of William Fitz-Norman and of Robert de Venuz; and, moreover, that William Fitz-Norman and William Alis were identical? What facts and circumstances are there to support these hypotheses? Are there any opposed to them? These we will proceed to ascertain, by an endeavour to trace the descent and possessions of the Fitz-Norman or De Mara family, bearing constantly in mind the fact, hitherto not sufficiently considered in compiling genealogies, that, in the early Norman reigns, the same person, as we have seen in Domesday, was often described by half a dozen different designations.3

Mr. Ormerod, in his Miscellanea Palatina, gives a well-authenticated pedigree of the baronial family of Montalt, derived from Robert Dapifer de Montalt, alias Robert Fitz-Ralph Fitz-Norman,

1 A "Gilbertus Vicecomes" is mentioned in the Domesday for Sussex. 2 He founded Merton Priory in Surrey, and laid the first stone in 1130, dying in the calends of August in the same year. He was there buried, and a monument existed to his memory. He is said to have been born in Normandy, and to have lived in great splendour.-(Manning and Bray's Surrey.)

3 Robert de Ivery died 1083, leaving three sons, Ascelin, Gouel, and William. The first is sometimes called by the same historian, Ascelin Gouel, Gouel de Breherval, Gouel de Perceval, and Gouel de Ivery. He was also named Lupellus, bearing for his ensign a wolf, to distinguish him from his contemporary Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, and his descendants corrupted this name into Lovell. Baldwin, the first Earl of Devon, and son of Gilbert Crispin, Earl of Brionne, was styled Baldwin Fitz-Gilbert; Baldwin Vicecomes (sheriff of Devon), Baldwin de Devoniâ; Baldwin de Exeter (where he had a castle), and de Brioniis, de Moels, and de Sap, from his manors so called. His eldest son was called de Ripariis, or Rivers, and his second son de Vernon.

C

:

mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I., and living in 1162 : his father, Ralph the Dapifer, was living 1093 and 1119, and was brother of Hugh Fitz-Norman, or de Mara, before mentioned another brother, Roger, was living in 1119. Hugh had a son, mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I., as William Fitz-Hugh-Fitz-Norman, whose, or whose father's possessions, in Cheshire at least, were afterwards in the hands of the Montalts, probably by marriage, as there appears to have been no issue of this Hugh. Of the father of these three brothers, Mr. Ormerod does not profess to know anything, but considers the name of "Norman" a soubriquet. Now, it is remarkable, that there occurs in Domesday this name and its Latin form, "Normannus," in very many counties, which, there is no doubt, was the Norman in question, and the father of these and other brothers. As under-tenant, he had lands in Berks, Somersetshire, Devonshire, Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, and Shropshire; and as tenant in capite, in Yorkshire. In one entry in Suffolk, he is styled "Vicecomes" (sheriff), and in the same county, as well as in Kent, Sussex, and Surrey, he is said to have held manors temp. Edward the Confessor and in one entry in Sussex, a manor is mentioned, of which "Normannus tenuit et tenet modo" of William de Ow. This "Norman " could not therefore have been a young man at the Domesday Survey, and at that time it will be seen the FitzNormans were; there is no discrepancy therefore to militate against the fraternity that is otherwise obvious; nor is there, it will be found, in extending it to William Fitz-Norman and his presumed brothers, Gilbert Norman (alias le Marshal) and Robert de Venuz. By Domesday it appears Mitcham, in Surrey, was owned, temp. Edward the Confessor, by "Le Marus," and subsequently we find the family of Mare, or De la Mare, owners of it for several generations. We have seen that this is another name of the family of Fitz-Norman; and there can be no question that this "Le Marus" and the Normannus of the Confessor's time, are the same person. Gilbert Norman dying about 1130, if then an old man of seventy, would of course, at the Domesday Survey, have been twenty-six years of age; when William Fitz-Norman or Robert de Venuz died, we do not know, but the latter, or a son of the same name, is mentioned in the Pipe Roll of 1131. "William Fitz-Norman" occurs in Domesday as tenant-in-chief, or under-tenant, in Sussex, Gloucestershire, and Herefordshire: in the latter county inter alia he held the manors of Fenn and Ferne: these, in 1144, were owned by "Hugh, son of William":1 his decease, therefore,

1 Duncumb's Herefordshire. "Hugh, son of William a Norman," is the first person known, according to Dugdale (Baronage), of the baronial

prior to that year, corresponds with the period of the death of Gibert Norman. This is an approximation; but in another way we get close to the exact year. If Hugh de Mara and Hugh Fitz-Norman are found to be identical, by parity of reasoning, William de Mara and William Fitz-Norman would be. Norman, or Le Marus, held a manor (ut ante) of William de Ow (Earl of Eu), so did William de Mara, in Herts, viz., the manor of Offley, which, with other property, came into the hands of the De la Mares, who owned Mitcham.. Now, Henry de la Mare, of this family, by the Pipe Roll of 1131, appears to have paid a sum of money for the office of his father, to which of course he had recently succeeded. His father must have been either the William or Hugh de Mara of Domesday, as there were no others of the name; the latter could not have been, for reasons before implied. Again: William Fitz-Norman, temp. Domesday, had Combe and Applesham, in Sussex. "Hugh Norman de Cumbe," the progenitor of the family of Combe, or Combes, of Sussex, occurs as witness to a charter temp. Stephen. This was no doubt the Hugh Fitz-William, owner of Fenn and Ferne.1 Dates and circumstances then, so far, harmonize, or do not disagree, with the view of relationship of these parties attempted to be established. But the great aid of heraldry has yet to be invoked to strengthen and extend our assumptions; new ground to be explored, and new assumptions to be made, for the purpose of seeing if the conclusions to which they lead may not corroborate the theories under consideration.2

family of Kilpec, in Herefordshire, who, he says, in 1124 (but in the Monasticon, which, in this case, is the correct date, 1134), gave to the monks of St. Peter, at Gloucester, the church of St. David, at Kilpec, also the churches and chapels of his patronage. To this Hugh succeeded Henry, who lived 22 Henry II., and to him John, who lived 5 Richard I. Now, Juliana de Kilpec, temp. John, had an interest in the manors of Fenn and Ferne (Madox's Hist. of the Exch.). There is little doubt, therefore, the first Hugh of Kilpec was son of the William Fitz-Norman of Domesday. Kilpec is supposed to have accrued to Hugh by marriage with a heiress of Roger Venator, brother of "Normannus Venator."

1 Walter de Ferne was witness (not, as Duncumb says erroneously, to the charter of Bernard Newmarch, temp. Henry I.) to a charter of Roger Earl of Hereford, between 1143-54, to Brecknock Priory. He was probably brother of Hugh Fitz-William, and died without issue, as we see Ferne afterwards in the hands of Hugh's successors.

2 There are two families, called Normanville, in Normandy, which probably received their designation, and, in turn, gave one, to some member of this family. In the Pipe Roll for Leicestershire, 1131, Gerold de Normanville pays for a moiety of the land of his uncle Norman. In the same record, Norman de Verdun renders an account. In Glapthorn, co. Northampton, temp. Henry II., Geoffrey de Normanville had lands; and at Glendon, in the same county, Ralph Norman, at the same period, was owner of property (Whalley's Northamptonshire). We have seen that the

[ocr errors]

Amongst the Shropshire manors of Normannus, is "Cantelupe.' The first person of this name to be met with is Walter de Cantalupe, who occurs in the Pipe Roll of 1131. Five males of this name occur in the Liber Niger a generation subsequently, viz., in 1166. These might be brothers; but if the Walter of 1131 were their ancestor and a son of Normannus, it is probable he was their grandfather, and that they were first cousins. There can be little doubt that this Walter de Cantalupe derived his name from and was owner of "Cantalupe," belonging to Normannus, at the Domesday Survey, even if it were not known that the arms of the family were three leopards' faces jessant de lis, which of course makes it almost certain. Was Walter then another son of Normannus, or a grandson through one of the Fitz-Normans? As just remarked, it is probable he was the former. If so, we have four brothers, named William, Hugh, Gilbert, and Walter. At this stage of the inquiry, we find a coincidence that promises to elucidate the subject. Four per

De la Mares were considerable owners in this county. In Sussex, Norman de Normanville, or Normanton, is assessed to the scutage of 7 and 14 Henry II., 6 and 8 Richard I., and 1 and 2 John (Dallaway's History of Western Sussex, i. Introd. lxiii.). On a fess cottised three fleurs de lis are the arms both of Norman and Normanville.

1 Mr. Eyton, in his excellent work, the Antiquities of Shropshire, identifies this Normannus with "Normannus Venator"; but they were certainly distinct persons. The latter designation does not occur in Domesday, though it occurs along with that of Roger Venator, his brother (who is so styled in Domesday), in Roger Earl of Shrewsbury's foundation charter of Quatford. This mistake seems to have arisen from most, if not all, of the Shropshire manors of "Normannus" having passed into the family of Picheford, of whom Ralph de Picheford was living 1102. This Ralph was probably son of Roger Venator. The arms of Picheford, as blazoned in Albrighton Church, were a cinquefoil and an orle of martlets, quartering (frequently) three fleurs de lis-doubtless the arms of the descendants of Normannus, from whom must have come Albrighton Bishton, and other manors, which, at the Domesday Survey, belonged to him. Indeed we see an acknowledgment of the descent, and a confirmation of the identity of Normannus and the family of Alis, in the name of Elyas de Albrighton, who lived 1228 (vol. ii. p. 157). Now, the arms of Picheford point out to what family he belonged; the cinquefoil was the well-known coat of the Darcys Norman D'Arcy, the first of this family in England, was witness to the foundation charter of St. Werburgh's Abbey, Chester, and there is little doubt that he was "Normannus Venator."

2 There were French families and places named Chanteloup; two persons so named were Crusaders: lozengy and a wolf passant, were arms borne by the families. The English Cantalupes were undoubtedly named after the manor of Cantalupe, in Shropshire, and which manor was as undoubtedly originally named after a French Chanteloup, from whom perhaps Normannus inherited it, as there is some reason to suppose a connection between his ancestors and the French Chanteloups.

sons with these Christian names were mesne tenants in Warwickshire, of Osborn Fitz-Richard, at the Domesday Survey.1 The descent of some of the manors held by them is obscure (and rendered more so by Sir William Dugdale, by confounding,. in common with most topographers, the tenant-in-chief and the mesne lord), of others sufficiently distinct, as those of Bereford, Hillsborough, Bevington, and Ippesley, which were owned by Hugh. The successors of this Hugh were the families of Hubald, who bore three leopards' faces, and Bereford, who bore three fleurs de lis. Hugh Fitz-Norman, it will be remembered, was supposed to have died without issue, and his inheritance to have passed (partly) to his cousin, by marriage. The family of Hubald, from which sprang that of Bereford, may have obtained these manors in the same way. An Elias de Bevington is to be met with at an early period, as also an Elias and Walter de Stretton, whilst Stretton is one of the manors owned by Matilda de Cantalupe temp. King John; and the Raleighs, descendants of Gilbert le Marshall, had property in Farnborough, which, says Dugdale, is involved with Molliton, that belonged to William. Osbern Fitz-Richard, the paramount lord of the aforesaid manors, was progenitor of the Scropes, who bore a bend, the bearing of the Fitz-Osborns and their successors, and a near relative of William Earl of Brettville (son of William Fitz-Osborn, Earl of Hereford), who, we have seen, was the feudal lord of William Halis. This therefore would render it probable that the "William," one of the mesne tenants of Osborn Fitz-Richard, was William Halis, and therefore, upon the presumption of " Hugh being identical with Hugh Fitz-Norman, the same as the William Fitz-Norman so often mentioned. But a more familiar acquaintance with the family of De la Mare will tend to establish the identity of William Alis and William de Mara.

[ocr errors]

The De la Mares, during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, was one of the most widely spread, powerful, and wealthy families of the kingdom, next to the nobility, and occupied a distinguished position amongst those of knightly rank. By tracing upwards some of their possessions to the Domesday Survey, we are enabled to identify other persons therein mentioned as owners, with their great ancestor Normannus; and by deducing the descent of families bearing their names, we become possessed of a mass of facts and circumstances that throw an increased light on the subject of our investigations. Amongst the returns of lands held of the crown, and their mesne tenants, A. D. 1166, recorded in the Liber Niger Scaccarii, Peter de la Mare states that he holds "Lavington," in Wilts, of the King. At the Domesday Survey, this, with Gare, was held of

1 Dugdale's Warwickshire, p. 244.

« PreviousContinue »