Staining, Kneesall, and Pyrton: can the dots be joined up?

Dots on the map. Three places where, in the twelfth century

A. the Constables of Chester had lands or influence, and

B. people called Beaumont appear.

1. Brief Genealogy of the Constables of Chester

William (his father supposedly called Nigel) died by the early 1130s and was followed by his son William, who died in the late 1140s, leaving no legitimate son. He had two sisters. The elder, Agnes, had married Eustace fitz John and the younger, Matilda, had married Albert de Grelley.

Consequently there was some kind of division of the lands. A charter of Ranulf earl of Chester (Madox Baronia Anglica (1741) pp.133-134) appears to confirm everything to Eustace but is, I suspect, not the whole story.

Eustace fitz John died in 1157 leaving his son by Agnes - Richard. Agnes remarried and lived some more years as did her second husband. Richard fitzEustace may well never have been "Constable of Chester" as such, as what evidence I can see makes me think that he died before his father and certainly before his mother's second husband.  Richard's son John is described as Constable of Chester from the mid 1160s. John lived till 1190. His brother was a senior member of the order of Hospitallers. Thereafter came John's son Roger until 1211 (called de Lacy from 1194) and then Roger's son John de Lacy, who was made Earl of Lincoln in 1232 and died in 1240.

Albert Grelley died in 1162 or 1163 after which Geoffrey de Valognes was involved in wardship of his lands because Albert and Matilda's son Albert jr was a minor. Albert may have come of age about 1170 but he died in the early 1180s leaving a son Robert who must have been born about 1174. Thus until 1195 there was another minority when the Grelley lands were at least part of that time in the hands of a certain Nigel son of Alexander and/or Robert de Burun. Robert Grelley died in 1230 succeeded by his son Thomas.

2. Staining (near Blackpool, Lancashire)

Staining belonged before 1066 to Tostig Godwinson as part of his lordship of Preston (Victoria County History Lancaster vol. 1 p.288). Tostig died at the battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066.

An interest at Staining came to the early Constables of Chester. William "fitz Nigel" gave an interest there to Runcorn priory in about 1115 (Chetham Society, vol. 100, last section, pp.19-21) along with the churches mentioned below. The information in Victoria County History Lancaster vol. 7 pp.238-9 seems incomplete.

When in the 1130s William's son moved Runcorn priory to Norton he took an interest at Staining back and gave something else in exchange (Monasticon Anglicanum 6 p.1657). That charter had one Roger de Ansgervilla as one of its witnesses.

Staining or some interest there came to William "the Monk," who was a son of Richard de Ansgervilla (Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants, p. 283) and thus perhaps brother of the witness, Roger.

William "the Monk" sold or transferred Staining to John Constable of Chester. The charter speaks of the entirety ("totam villam" - thus at least, the whole of what William "the Monk" held). The then priest of Pyrton was a witness to that charter, and also people called Croxton and Burdon. William the Monk did this with the consent of his nephew Thomas de Bellomonte (Whalley Coucher Book vol. 2 p.420).

After this, it would seem that Staining belonged to John Constable of Chester and his successors until his grandson John de Lacy gave it to Stanlow abbey, that charter being witnessed by William de Beaumont (Whalley 2 pp. 419-20). Later still, the possessions of Stanlow abbey were transferred to Whalley.

The Valognes family (Geoffrey, his brother Philip and others), had interests at Staining. Geoffrey and Philip de Valognes seem to have been first cousins of the above- and below- mentioned Richard son of Eustace. This enquiry will continue.

 3. Kneesall (north Nottinghamshire)

Gilbert de Gant had land in Maplebeck, which included Kneesall and Kersall. It was held by the Burdons. (Thoroton, as below). Lordship evidently passed from the Gants to William "fitz Nigel" constable of Chester who gave the church there to Runcorn in about 1115, one Richard of Kneesall being a witness (Chetham Soc, as above). Kneesall church was transferred 20-odd years later to Norton priory (MA 6 1657).

Kneesall descended via Eustace fitz John (d.1157), through his son Richard, grandson John, and great-grandson Roger (Thoroton, 3, 129-131, 132-136).

"Richard son of Eustace son of John" gave a charter to Hugh and Richard of Croxton which also mentioned Richard of "Am" [Ompton, perhaps] and the men of "Neuhaga." A Philip de Beaumont witnessed this charter (Rufford Charters (Ed. Holdsworth) Vol 2 428 (page 234)). This will be about the mid 1150s. Richard's mother Agnes gave land at Ompton to Rufford abbey (Rufford Charters no 421). Ompton is next to Kneesall. 

Kersall was a "member" of Kneesal, and at times people called Croxton, and people called Walensis, had interests there (Thoroton, 3, 136-138). The Hospitallers had an interest at Kneesall before the Third Crusade. Ompton or "Almeton" (var. sp.) was associated with or part of Kneesall and was part of the dower of the wife of John Constable of Chester, i.e. Roger's mother (Thoroton, 3, 132-6). 

References to Thoroton are to the c.1796 edition available on "British History online."

4.  Pyrton (in the Chilterns, between Oxford and High Wycombe)

Domesday Book shows a large estate at Pyrton (sometimes Pirton) held by "William" from Hugh Earl of Chester.  William "fitzNigel" gave the church at Pyrton to Runcorn priory in about 1115, one witness being Edmund priest of Pyrton (Chetham Society, as above). Pyrton church was transferred 20-odd years later to Norton priory (MA 6 1657).

When the estates were divided, Pyrton was placed into the Grelley half, which was the junior share and thus was a kind of sub-tenancy (see Farrer, Honors and Knights Fees, ii, 250ff). [Amended 12 Nov. 2021: I now believe that Pyrton was not allocated to the Grelleys until the 1160s, perhaps in a deal involving Geoffrey de Valognes. John Constable of Chester needed money as he had made a large fine with the king for his mother's lands. John's estates, his area of interest, were all nowhere near Pyrton].

Agnes ([elder] sister of William Constable of Chester (and now widow of Eustace fitzJohn) is mentioned above as having given land at Ompton to Rufford Abbey. She also gave property at Pyrton, including a hide at a place there called Clare [Claiora] to Hurley Priory in the Thames valley in about 1158 (Madox, Formulare Anglicanum (1702), no. 415 (CCCCXV) p.237). The witnesses to the two charters have some names in common.

In the early 1160s the Grelley interest in Pyrton seems to have been controlled, during the minority of Albert Grelley jr, by Geoffrey de Valognes, who was also "farmer" of the honor of Lancaster (HKF ii 251).

A William de Bellomonte succeded to land held from the Grelleys in 1185 or 1186 during the minority of Robert Grelley (Pipe Roll 32 Henry 2 (1185/6), p.81). This will be Pyrton - unless the Grelleys had two lots of tenants called Beaumont.

Later litigation shows that a Thomas de Beaumont gave land in Pyrton at Clare and also a place called Goldor to Hugh Druval in marriage with a kinswoman called Mabel (Curia Regis Rolls Vol. 6 (1210-12), p.139).

The Beaumont successor at Pyrton was called Philip [12 Nov.2021: this is revised. Philip at Pyrton was the successor of Thomas but only one source says his father was Thomas. I think Philip was son of a Richard, but the successor of his childless uncle, Thomas] Philip came of age in the early 1220s and seems to have been embroiled in litigation about what Thomas did. In the early stages a claim was brought by one Robert de Chaucombe. The defendants then were William de Sutton and his wife Mabel, and Philip was "called to warrant" (i.e. to guarantee Mabel's right). That case was adjourned because Philip was under age. When he came of age the case came back, and Philip "warranted" to the Suttons. Robert de Chaucombe withdrew his claim, but only on being paid 30 marks (Berkeley Castle Muniments BCM/D/6/5/1). Later still, in 1231 after Mabel had died, the case came to court again, brought by William de Sutton as widower, against a young man called Hugh Druval. It transpired that Mabel had been married three times. The court was told that a certain Thomas de Beaumont had given her in marriage to her first husband Hugh Druval and that they had had issue Hugh, the father of the Hugh Druval the 1231 defendant. I don't think Philip de Beaumont was actually a party to the case in 1231 (Bracton's Note Bk., n. 566, in vol. 2 pp.438-439). (CRR Vol. 14 (1230-32) para.1473), but I think he was living in 1236 (Close Rolls, 1234-37, p.358).

Since Hugh (grandson) must have been of age in 1231, he was born by about 1210. If his father was (say) 25 in 1210 then the marriage of Hugh (grandfather) to Mabel dates back to the 1180s.

There has been a muddle about Philip de Beaumont of Pyrton having other interests, in Devon. 

[Amended 12 November 2021:- I used to believe he was related to a Devon Philip but that they were not the same individual. Now I believe they are one and the same.] [Note made 13 November 2023:- Surely in fact Philip (Pyrton) and Philip (Devon) must in fact be different people. One thing which I feel just about proves that is that the name of Beaumont did not continue at Pyrton after that Philip, whereas it did continue in Devon for over two hundred years.]

5. The Cotentin connection?

I suggest at least the possibility that the Thomas Beaumont (of the Staining charter) and the Philip (of the Rufford charter) are the two who witnessed the charter of Oliver de Tracy to Saint Sauveur abbey (see my piece of Jan. 30, 2021). Thomas and Philip consented to gifts by William "the Monk" to both Saint Sauveur (a gift of a house in Barfleur and money from unspecified lands in England) (BNFr Lat.17137 fols. 246r&v, no.356) and Montebourg Abbeys (BNFr Lat. 10087 no.422 in particular).

And William the Monk is seen as a senior witness, next after William the Constable of Chester, to a charter of Ranulf earl of Chester concerning land in the Wirral (Manchester Univ., Rylands Collection ref. RYCH/1807; Barraclough, Cheshire Charters, no.35). (There was at least one other contemporary William "the monk," and they are apt to be mixed up one with another, but this one was mainly a personage of the Cotentin, who had some connexion with Chester and Lancashire as we have seen).

A later piece will I hope look in more detail at the Cotentin aspect of this, considering some aspects of the life of Tostig Godwinson, and then the Ansgervilles, William the Monk, and the Beaumonts. It will be clear that the area of interest is the NE part of the Cotentin, broadly between Barfleur and Cherbourg. 

The dots are not joined up - but the above hints that people called Beaumont "went back a long way" with the Constables of Chester before our first Yorkshire Beaumont entered the service of Roger the Constable, Roger de Lacy, in the 1190s.

EMB 27 February 2021 / 12 November 2021 / 13 November 2023

Memorial in Gittisham Church - "born of what honourable race...."

How things change.

The text reads:-

OBIJT APRILIS PRIMO 1591

Enterred here w[ith]in this tombe doth Henry Beaumont rest

A man of iust and vpright life with many graces blest

Who learnd to knowe God's Holy Will all wicked waies defyed

And as he learnd so did he lyve and as he lyved he dyed

What good he might he gladly did and never harmed any

Courteous he was in all his life and frindly unto many

But most of all his liberall giftes, abounded to the poore

A worthy practize of that worde that he had learned before.

Borne of what honorable race is nedeles for this verse

Since French and Englishe chronicles so oft his name reherse

Which ancient bloude wt in himself by want of issue spent

The sinkinge line thereof he corckt by one of that descent

He lived thrise tenn yeres and nine with his most Godly wife

Who yelded him his honor due voyde of unkindly strife

And for true witness of her love which never was defaced

As dutie last this monument she caused here be placed.

…………..

Box 14-099 - Note of Memorial for Henry Beaumont, Gittisham, near Honiton, Devon

Caroline, Edward, Richard, and Sam called at Gittisham in May 1991 and noted down the inscription (E&OE!!). Also in the church was a board about the charitable fund founded by the same Henry Beaumont and / or by his widow. 

Will of Elizabeth Beamont, widow, Gittisham 1614 (PCC Wills). The text on the Monument does not say whether she was buried there too. Her side of the Monument appears to show an infant child.

Henry seems to be the last, or one of the last, of the old line of Beaumonts of Devon.  His is said to have left his estates to a member of the namesake family in Leicestershire. 

My own forebear Rev Thomas Beaumont of East Bridgford, in his fantastically inaccurate genealogical notebook (Box 1-232 in this Archive), written before 1820 I think, wrote of this in terms of it offering substantive proof not only that the Devon and Leicestershire Beaumonts were related to one another, but the Yorkshire ones as well. Mmmmmm.

EMB 20 February 2021

Roger Constable of Chester in 1191 and the castles of Nottingham and Tickhill

I touched on this story in June 2020 in my piece about the red herring of Roger constable of Chester and the crusade.

I am not able to say who wrote the text below, only that I have it from the work known as Gesta Henrici Secundi and that it is an old text with a complicated history. I do not know exactly when it was written, or whether the writer was drawing on first-hand knowledge.

The story has been referred to in various published works in various abridged forms. I have decided to put it here in the longest version that I have found, in latin.

I found it easy to get the gist of it, but very hard to translate word for word, so what follows - the English version - is just the gist!

...............

Eodem anno Rogerus constabularius Cestriae, filius Johannis, cui Willelmus Eliensis episcopus, dum esset totius Angliae justitiarius, tradiderat castellum de Notingeham et castellum de Tikehil, in fidelitate regis custodienda, ........

The same year [clearly meaning 1191] Roger constable of Chester, son of John, to whom William bishop of Ely, when he was Justiciar of all England, entrusted the castles of Nottingham and Tickhill to hold faithfully for the king, ......

At least one published translation of this states that the castles were entrusted to Roger, and whether this is right depends on how you read the first sentence. I have left it ambiguous also in English. But I think it means the castles were entrusted to John Constable of Chester, otherwise there would be no point in mentioning him. William Longchamp became Chancellor and bishop of Ely in September 1189, shortly after Richard I came to the throne. The castles must have been placed in John's hands very early on because he, if the accounts are correct, proceeded to the Middle East where he died, apparently in October 1190. Some old editors called him "de Lacy," which is incorrect, and may be a reflection of some other muddle. Richard I left England in mid December 1189 and did not return till 1194. 

...... doluit vehementer quod servientes sui quibus ille praenominata castella tradiderat in custodia, scilicet Robertus de Crocstune, quem ipse fecerat constabularium de Notingeham, et Eudo de Daiville, quem fecerat constabularium. de Tikehil,  ........

...... was greatly pained that his officers to whom he ["ille" - presumably meaning John] had committed custody of the said castles, namely Robert of Croxton, who he had made constable of Nottingham, and Eudes de Daiville, who he had made constable of Tickhill, .....

See previous note. I think that Roger was upset because these men would have given undertakings to his father, and I think that such an undertaking given to a person known to be about to depart on the Crusade was particularly strong.

...... ita inconsulte et sine insulto tradidissent praenominata castella Johanni comiti Meretonii. 

 .......without consulting him and without being attacked had delivered the said castles to John count of Mortain.

Et apposuit ut comprehenderet illos, sed illi inde praemuniti custodiebant se, male sibi conscii, et de venia desperantes juri stare noluerunt. 

And he tried to arrest them but they were forewarned...... got away ..... they refused to stand trial.

Et ideo nomen proditoris in aeternum non deficiet illis. 

And so the traitors got away from him for ever.

Nottingham castle as it might have been

Et praedictus Rogerus constabularius Cestriae apprehendit Alanum de Lec, quem associaverat Robertus de Crokestona in custodia castelli de Notingham. 

And the said Roger constable of Chester arrested Alan of Leake, with whom Robert of Croxton was associated in the custody of Nottingham castle.

and as it is

 

I suspect Alan is named from Leake (East or West), south of Nottingham, rather than Leek (Staffordshire).

Apprehendit et Petrum de Bouencurt, Normannigenam [sic], quem ipse associaverat Eudoni de Daivilla in custodia castelli de Tikehil;

And he arrested Peter de Bovencurt, a Norman (?), with whom Eudes de Daiville was associated in the custody of Tickhill castle.

et utrumque illorum suspendit in patibulo, 

and hung them both on the gibbet,

licet praedictus Petrus de Bouencurt, statim post traditionem castelli de Tikehil, venisset Lundonias, in conspectu Johannis comitis Meretonii, ......

However the said Peter de Bovencurt, immediately after the handover of Tickhill castle, had gone to London, to see John count of Mortain, .......

There is a shorter and in some respects different translation of this story in John T. Appleby's "England without Richard," (1965) at page 69.

et in curia regis, coram cancellario, voluisset innocentiam suam purgare: constanter affirmans quod castellum de Tikeliil traditum fuit comiti Johanni contra voluntatem et prohibitionem suam; 

and in the king's court, before the chancellor, had said he wanted to prove his innocence; steadfastly declaring that Tickhill castle was handed over to count John against his wish and against his order[s];

et quod si ipse habuisset socios qui essent unanimes ad defendendum illud contra comitem Meretonii, sicut ipse voluit, non esset traditum in manu illius. 

and that if he had had associates who were agreed about defending [it] against the count of Mortain, as he had wanted, it would not have been delivered it into his hands.

Cancellarius vero noluit purgationem inde ab eo recipere; sed remisit eum ad curiam constabularii Cestriae, dicens illi, 

But indeed the Chancellor refused to purge [clear, acquit] him but sent him to the court of the constable of Chester, saying to him

" Vade ad dominum tuum constabularium, et in curia ejus purga innocentiam tuam a crimine quod ipse tibi imponit.” 

"Go to your lord the constable, and in his court prove your innocence of the crime that he charges you with / places on you."

Qui cum illuc venisset cum litteris comitis Meretonii supplicantibus, obtulit se modis omnibus purgare innocentiam suam a crimine quod dominus suus ei imponebat; scilicet quod nec praecepit nec voluit nec in aliquo consensit quod castellum de Tikeliil traderetur comiti Johanni ; immo in quantum potuit prohibuit ne traderutur illi. 

[And he] thereupon came with letters from the count of Mortain, and offered by all means to clear himself as innocent of the crime his lord laid on him; namely that he did not order or wish or in any way or consent that Tickhill castle be handed over to count John; indeed that to the extent of his power, he forbad it.

At praedictus constabularius Cestriae noluit inde recipere purgationem ab illo, sed sine judicio ilium suspendit in patibulo cum catena ferrea. 

And the said constable of Chester would not accept this as proof of his innocence, but without trial, hung him on a gibbet with iron chains.

In Appleby's translation both Alan and Peter are hung on the iron chains, and the birds feast on both corpses. But the whole of this second part of the story seems to me to relate to Peter.

Deinde post triduum suspendit quendam armigerum suum, pro eo quod ipse abigebat aves a corpore illius pendentis in patibulo, quae carnes ejus unguibus et rostris dilacerabant. 

And thereupon after three days he hung a certain squire of his,  as he was driving birds away from his body hanging on the gibbet, which were picking at his flesh with their claws and beaks.

Johannes autem comes Moretonii, in vindictam praedictorum suspensorum dissaisiavit praedictum constabularium Cestriae de omni tenemento quod de illo tenuit, et terras suas devastavit.

John count of Mortain, in retribution for the said hanging, disseised the said constable of Chester of all property that he held of him, and laid waste to his lands.

• Note. In this text the verb "trado" is used several times. It can mean hand over, deliver, entrust, consign, surrender treacherously, and so on. So the gist seems to me that the castles were entrusted to John constable of Chester to hold for the King. The logic of this was clear enough - Nottingham itself was a royal castle, but the constable of Chester had claims on Tickhill, and their own castle nearby at Donington. He had numerous estates within close reach of Nottingham and Tickhill from which he could draw men and supplies. Shortly after taking on this charge however John appears to have departed to the Middle East, where he died, possibly in late 1190. News of this would have come back to England as count John's mainly north of England rebellion was gathering momentum. I have taken "doluit vehementer" to mean that Roger was strongly affected - by the breach of promises to his father.  A few years later, of course,  and Roger was reconciled with and working for the former Count John, who became king in 1199.

Please refer to the Preface by Bishop Stubbs to the (1867) two volume Rolls Series edition of the Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, and to later opinions. The text itself has been taken from Vol. 2 of that edition, pages 232-234. The incident in question is chronologically one of the last (latest) stories to be recounted. See page xxviii of the Preface in Vol. 1. 

Despite its title the edition of course includes many pages of events in the reign of Richard I including much information about the Third Crusade. Quite suddenly on page 207 of Vol. 2 in the printed edition, it "flips" to events in England in 1191, specifically at Lincoln, Tickhill, and Nottingham. I have seen nothing suggesting that there was any fighting or resistance at either Nottingham or Tickhill. The implication is that the chancellor was focussed on Lincoln at the time. These events were early in the year, as a treaty reached at Winchester in ??March 1191 mentions Nottingham and Tickhill as already being in count John's hands, and they were to be handed over to new castellans on behalf of the king. I suspect that that "hand back" never happened - Nottingham for example was in the hands of rebels until 1194 when King Richard returned.

EMB 17 February 2021

Another early Yorkshire Beaumont (but in the Warenne honour)

We have talked about the First Yorkshire Beaumont and this person was his close contemporary so he will come up sooner or later - I may as well say something about him!

His name was Godfrey, and his is found in context of Crigglestone and Sandal, not far from Wakefield, and in the lands of the Warenne family. Contextually this is entirely different from the Pontefract honor. It is quite likely that this person was a member of the Beaumont family which had been tenants of the Warennes mainly in Sussex and Norfolk since the late eleventh century.

In 2015 I put up a pieces[s] on the Beaumonts of Norfolk and Suffolk. I would think this Godfrey is one of the "first" family I mentioned there, or an early member of the "second."

I made the notes out of "Early Yorkshire Charters," volume 8, many years ago. I can't find the full text of the volume online, so haven't been able to check the references.

Constable of Sandal castle, between c.1206-1218

Godfrey de Bellomonte " was constable of Sandal in the early c.13 (EYC, 8, pp. 251-2, part of the note on officers and stewards of the Warennes. We do not know how long Godfrey had this role.  

Confirmation by Roger son of Jordan de Stanley to Fountains dated 1206-1218. Wtss: John de Plaiz then seneschal of the lord earl Warenne, Godefrido de Bello Monte constable of Sandal, Thomas de Horbury, John de Heaton, Henry of Digton, Hugh of Rastric (EYC, 8, no.161, p.223).

Next an attestation to a deed which (rather confusingly) ended up in the Whitley Archive:

Witnesses a charter re Crigglestone

WBD/X/90 is the feoffment of one acre in Crigglestone by John, son of Hugh, cemetery keeper, to Geoffrey, son of Gregory of Crigglestone and his heirs. Property: one acre in the fields of Crigglestone. Witnesses: Godfrey of Bello monte; William, chaplain; Adam of Crigglestone; Robert of Whitley; Adam of Woodhouse; Hugh of Bretton; William, son of Robert of Crigglestone; Henry Forist; Henry of Sandal magna

Witnesses charter of the earl Warenne

A quit-claim by William earl Warenne re land at Wakefield dated to 1210 x 1225. The witness list:- Roger de Mortemer, Eustace de Es, the Hersin brothers Malveisin and Baldwin, Heliga de Mareville, William de St Martin, Hugh de Budell', Matthew de Shepley tunc seneschallo, Godefrido de Bello monte, Adam de St.Laurent, Reginald Coc, Hugh de Acra, John de Stanford clerico, Richard de Wakering clerico, Master Philip who wrote this charter (EYC, 8, no.92, p.132).

Also called "de Attell"

It seems plausible to suggest, and I believe Clay thought so, that the name "de Attel" which appears to attach to Godfrey, has to do with Atlingworth in Sussex, a place in the Downs close to Fulking, where an earlier Godfrey de Beaumont was a Warenne tenant soon after the time of Domesday Book,

For Fulking see VCH Sussex vol. 7 pp.202-3. For Atlingworth see also VCH Sussex vol. 7, p.258, but this confuses two places. The place we are concerned with is the site of former Atlingworth Barn in Portslade parish, which is "not to be confused with the Manor of Atlingworth in Brighton" (Letter, E. Holden to T. Beaumont, 20 April 1988). See http://epns.nottingham.ac.uk/browse/id/5328722fb47fc40c360007a5

Gift and quit-claim by William son of Adam of Ossett to Ralph son of Thomas de Horbury of 5 bovates in Ossett which Ralph had held of him. Date:- 1206 x 1218. Witnesses: John de Plaiz at that time seneschal of the lord earl Warenne, lord constable Godefrido de Attell [domino constabulario Godefrido de Attell], lord Maluaisin de Hersin, Thomas son of William de Horbury, Robert de Barkeston, Adam son of Alan de Crigleston (EYC, 8, no.164, pp.228-9).

Then a time gap and a "fine" recording a land transaction

19 Henry III (?1 December 1234) - fine between Godfrey de Bellomonte and Robert de Rockley and Margery his wife, for one carucate of land in Crigleston [Crigglestone]. This means that Godfrey was transferee. Robert and Margery transferred the land to him. Philip de Wudehall was present and quit-claimed (released) his right to the land (YAS RS vol. 67, Yorks Fines 1232-46 p.22; EYC 8 p.191; YAJ 6 p.445, having been noted by Dodsworth "out of ye court Rolles belonging to Francis Burdet of Birthwayt 30 Dec. 1629").

Not the earliest!

Where this is printed in the YAJ vol. 6 p.445 a footnote -

1. states this to be earliest occurrence of the name Beaumont in Yorkshire (absolutely incorrect), 

2. suggests that Godfrey may be the ancestor of the Beaumonts of Whitley (absolutely not),

3. notes that Godfrey was tenant at Criglestone of the earl Warenne, and wonders if he was therefore a descendant of Godfrey who held Fulking (plausible, and as suggested above),

4. notes that Geoffrey (sic) was the name of the third son of vicomte Ralph in the eleventh century (not in the least relevant);

5. notes that William de Bellomonte held the eighth part of a knights fee from the Earl of Lincoln in 1245 (but that is the Pontefract honor, i.e. the Huddersfield family, there is no reason to suppose any connection with this Godfrey, who is clearly a Warenne man).

A Family Tree of 1791 which remained in Wakefield

A note in my father's hand states that Godfrey was mentioned in papers belonging to Stephen Gerald Beaumont, and in a pedigree written out by R.H.Beaumont in 1791 for George Beaumont of Leeds. I remember S. G. Beaumont, a distinguished former Royal Air Force officer,  and Wakefield solicitor. He visited my father on at least one occasion, about the time that he retired from practice in Wakefield and went to live at Devizes.

One last (wrong?) reference

Another note from my father. Godfrey de Bellomonte "was upheld in his claim to 10 oxgangs or 1 carucate and 2 oxgangs at Crigleton nr Wakefield as a tenant of the Lord of Sandal, William de Warenne." The source given was "WBD X I at Huddersfield, Dodsworth, YAJ, Whitaker, etc". In the WYAS catalogue today WBD/X/1 is something entirely different. I think it must all simply be an error but I leave it here in case the source materialises!

EMB 3 February 2021

Early Photographs of George and Emma Beaumont

In my parents' house near Chichester was a corner cupboard inside which amongst other things were two coloured Victorian images, a gentleman and lady, set in identical display mounts marked "photographic miniatures by Mr Sutton 204 Regent St." 

After the house was cleared prior to sale in 2012, the mounts were discarded as in poor condition. 

Also in the cupboard, loose, was a note in my mother's hand identifying Emma. It appears that my father thought these to be pictures of his grandparents George and Emma (both died before he was born). 

I found a website saying that Edwin Sutton was a photographer at 204 Regent Street (London) from 1856-1873. I am inclined to think that these images do indeed show George and Emma, not long after they had married, which was at Pytchley, Northamptonshire, on 17 July 1861. 

Emma Beaumont (nee Heycock) 1839-1907

George Beaumont 1825-1899 of East Bridgford

Whether the images (now Box 1-189 in this archive) were taken by some photographic process is not really clear, but I think so. However these are larger than normal cartes de visite. The glass and mounts measure 5.5 ins by 6.5 ins and the image inside (the openings in the mount, to the top of the curve at the top) are 4 ins by 5.25 ins.

I thought these images may well be, like one we have of George's mother, some form of ambrotype, or  “collodion positive” which has been painted. They would then be of a type of photographic image that was going out early in the 1860s as the new and more affordable carte de visite format came in.

However, on another examination it seemed to me that the images are actually on (quite thick) paper, behind the glass. The glass is detaching itself from the paper over time, and there are signs of various patching-up jobs, the edges of one of them being stuck with perforated-edge paper that looks to me to have come from a sheet of postage stamps.

One theory is that the images were hand-coloured by Emma herself.

Box 1/022 in this Archive is a receipt issued, presumably to George Beaumont, dated 3 April 1869, at 2 Royal Exchange Buildings [London]. But I expect he went to London quite often.

There are several later photos of Emma and George including these taken some years later at studios in Nottingham.

I would much appreciate any comments both as to the images themselves and also as to whether others agree the identifications, based on the later photos.

EMB 2 February 2021

The South Tawton red herring

In the 1120s Henry I married off one of his numerous illegitimate daughters to a lord on or just outside the southern borders of Normandy. This may be seen as part of a strategy aimed at promoting loyalty through kinship ties in future generations. 

That lord was Roscelin, the "vicomte" of Maine, who had castles at Sainte-Suzanne and Beaumont-sur-Sarthe. Sainte-Suzanne perhaps in particular is well worth a visit.

King Henry gave South Tawton in Devon as Constance's dowry. 

The 1129/1130 Pipe Roll thus shows Rotscelino de Belmonte excused two silver marks in Devonshire (Pipe Roll p. 155).

Constance and her husband had a son Vicomte Richard, who named one of his daughters Constance, and she in due course married a baron called Roger de Tosny. South Tawton was given again as her dowry or marriage portion.

Here is a note of the charter in which king John in 1199 confirms -

to Constance de Toeni daughter of Richard vic de Bellomonte our kinsman, her land of Aelrichescote which is in Devon in the parish of Sustanton namely the land which king Henry the first, the grandfather of king Henry our father gave, with the said vill of Suthauton, to Constance his daughter and grandmother of the said Constance, in free marriage, etc etc., given at Le Mans 22 Sept. [1199] (Rotuli Chartarum, ed. T.D. Hardy (1837), pp.20-21).

Added this 10 May 2021. Book of Fees p.98 also shows the history of South Tawton to 1212. Given by Henry I to Roscelin de Bello Monte in marriage with Constance his [the king's] daughter, and given by Roscelin's son Richard de Bello Monte to Roger de Tony in marriage with his daughter Constance "who now holds this land."

Amended this 13 May 2021. Keats-Rohan, Domesday Descendants, page 741, states that Roger de Tosny's Constance was Roscelin's daughter.  I think grand-daughter is more likely.

Amended this 10 May 2021. There seems to be no clear evidence as to the date Roger de Tosny married his Constance. As his widow she was living as late as 1210-12 (Book of Fees p.98) (Red Book p.484).

The Tosny family continued to hold South Tawton and it is mentioned in the Inq. Post Mortem of Roger de Tony who died in 48 Henry III, about 1264 (Cal. IPM 1 no.588).

See:- Ethel Lega-Weekes, Neighbours of North Wyke, Transactions of the Devonshire Association vol. 33 (1901).  This is well-written and thorough. 

But:-

Contemporary with Vicomte Richard (father or perhaps brother (deleted 10/5/21) of the younger Constance) was Thomas de Bellomonte, a significant land-holder in Devon, holding four knights fees of the honor of Okehampton.

Sir William Pole, in Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon (various editions I think, including one of 1791 long after his death), considered that this Thomas was descended from Roscelin and Constance. But given that there was Robert de Bellomonte in Devon in 1086, a tenant of the same honor and (I think) occupying some of the same lands as Thomas, and given that Roscelin's predecessors of the 1086 generation were Hubert, and his son Ralph, and that the name Thomas is not found in the Vicomtes' family, that is clearly not a credible theory.

The fact that the mother of the first Constance was ?fictitiously? supposed to be a lady of the same family as Robert Earl of Leicester and Waleran Count of Meulan (i.e., a woman called Beaumont) has probably worsened the old muddle.

Information available today (eg online) which connects "the Beaumonts" with South Tawton seems to derive from E.T. Beaumont's unreliable book "The Beaumonts in History," about which I posted an article on this blog in May 2017. That book contains a fantastically wrong section about the Devonshire Beaumonts at pages 57-60, chunks of which seem to have been pasted into various websites.

It is confused and confusing to say that South Tawton was anciently a possession of the Beaumont family. There was at least one Beaumont family in Devon but those "Beaumonts" who were connected with South Tawton for a couple of generations were the "vicomtes" of Maine, who had little or no other dealings or lands in England.

EMB 1 February 2021 / 10 May 2021

PS The Vicomtes de Maine were lords of Sainte-Suzanne and other castles, and patrons of an abbey at Etival-en-Charnie. Their male line continued until the mid c13 when there was an heiress Agnes who married Louis de Brienne, sometimes called Louis of Acre. Their younger son Henry, who must have been born in the 1270s or early 1280s, used the name Beaumont, and as a fairly young man moved to England and made his career working for Edward II.

Henry did very well for himself indeed, in terms of wealth and honours, and died in March 1339/40. His descendants were a new "dynasty" of Beaumonts in England, apparently for practical purposes unrelated to the several Beaumont families who were in England long before.