Account Book 1835-1840

 Box 1-033 in our archive is a notebook (4.5 x 7 inches) used by Walter Beaumont for an account after the death on 25 August 1835 of his brother Revd. Thomas Beaumont ("TB" here) of East Bridgford. A number of the payments made by Walter evidently related to the funeral, monument etc.;  others are for servants' wages. There is also evidence of a certain amount of farming activity!

Walter was one of the three executors but as he was living in the house ("The Hill"), many details naturally fell to him to deal with. The account is titled "Walter Beaumont with the Executors of the late Revd Thomas Beaumont."  It must be his own writing.

The left side of each double page records cash or cheques Walter received from eg sales or reimbursements. The right side shows payments Walter made, either in cash or by his own cheque.

First double page

Walter started the account on 26 August 1835, the day after his brother died, noting that he had paid 2s 6d for writing paper and sealing wax. He had found £3 15s 6d cash in the house. Needing as he obviously did to pay various things, he obtained £100 in cash from Smiths Bank on 29 August and a further £100 a week later. 

(Note: As many readers will know, Smiths the bankers in Nottingham were related to the Beaumonts, being descended from the late TB's great-aunt Jane and her husband Abel Smith)

On 4 September Walter paid “Mrs Revill” the balance of accounts due to her and her wages in full, totalling £37 7s 9d. (“Ffanny Revel” is mentioned in TB's will as “the faithful nurse and attendant of my late dear wife and now in my service,” so I guess she had been providing the same sort of service to him in his old age - he left her a life interest in a cottage, and a legacy). On the same day Walter paid Thomas Goodwin a pound and Hannah Goodwin two pounds, for nursing (They also had been left life interests in a cottage).

(TB's wishes are not easy to make out, as the will itself is supplemented by three codicils all made over the period 1832-1834, in which gifts were made and altered!)

On 8 September Walter paid a certain S. Millington ten shillings, 8s being for “8 days,” and 2s being for callico and buttons.

On 11 September he paid Thomas Forrest two pounds, being for “the six bearers and two mules,” five shillings each. ( This must relate to the funeral. Thomas Forrest was TB's tenant at Car Colston and had witnessed one of the codicils).

The next day Walter paid John Hutchinson's wages to date, five guineas. (Hutchinson was TB's butler).

On 22 and 26 September Walter paid more servants' wages. Mary Sprouage £10-16-0, Mary Bradwell £9-4-8, William Bradwell, 7-10-0, Mary Barnes 12-3–0, Thomas Goodwin, 7-2-3, and Jno Husbands £3. (Goodwin was TB's coachman and Husbands was gardener).

At the bottom of this first double page Walter noted that he had received £203 15s 6d and spent £98 1s 2d (But he did not record the balance in hand. He never did that, but each time he started a new page he would carry the total amount over).

Second double page - 

On 26 September Walter paid two years insurance in the Imperial Fire Office up to Xmas 1835 by Thomas Forrest £9-3-0. (It is is not clear to me as to what was being insured).

On 30 Sep Walter paid "Hutchinsons monthly account" noting the items as 9s to Mary Pepper for washing, £1 10s for "in attendance on Mrs Hulse," 2s for Clock cleaning, 6s 3d for "Postwoman's Quarter" (?), 3s 6d for Joseph Upton's bill, and 4s 6d for having the kitchen and scullery chimneys swept.

("Mrs Hulse" means Jane Hulse, TB's former housekeeper, who had retired by this date, but who was left an annuity of a guinea a week for life (see below)).

On 6 Oct Walter paid James Horsepoole butcher in full £8-13-0. On 8 October he paid James Mann tailor in full £23-12-0, paying that with his own cheque and getting one for the same amount from Smiths Bank the same day.

On 13 October Walter noted that he had paid Thomas Goodwin 7s 6d for "2 days & expenses in conveying the 3 carriages to Nottm." (I am supposing that these vehicles were to be sold.) Earlier in the month Walter had sold a horse to Mr Hassall for £54 10s,  incurring 10s of expense in so doing and giving a pound to someone called Martin as a present.

("Mr Hassall" means John Hassall, a local farmer and beneficiary under the Will, who seems to have been involved in looking after Mrs Hulse.)

On 14 October Walter paid the subscription to the National School, two guineas, and on 15 October he paid ten guineas to a certain Charles ?Sorel(?) "for surveying at Car Colston by order of G.B."

Third double page

On 19 October Walter paid John Husband's wage in full (?to 22 Sept), 7s 6d. He also paid £9 to Mr Hassall as "Mrs Hulse's expenses in the Asylum, 6 weeks." And he paid 7s 6d as three years subscription to the Notts Association for Prosecuting Felons.

On 21 October Walter paid his own cheque to Thos Musson Undertaker in full £47-1-6, and collected a cheque from Smiths Bank for the same amount to refund him.

On 29 October Walter paid Thomas Freeman ten pounds "on account" and also paid Henry Upton 2s 6d  "for shaving T.B."

On 3 Nov He paid John Brown the Poor Rate of 10d in the £ - this came to £3 5s 2 1/2. And on 4 Nov he paid E Mason Overseer of the Highways, the rate of 5d in the £ on £78 5s. This came to £1 12s 7d. And on 7 Nov he paid 3d for "carriage of a packet on Justice business." (This last possibly to do with TB having been a Magistrate).

On 10 Nov. Walter paid Rev Mr Hutchins (the Rector) £5 10s "for opening the Vault," and "the clerk fee" of a pound (TB himself had been the Curate).

At the end of this double page Walter noted that he had received £329 1s 4d and spent £233 10s 111/2d.

Fourth double page

On 12 Nov Walter paid John Hutchinson 17s 6d for 10 days wages from 10-22 Sep last, and 12s to William Bower "for two cows going to his Bull."

On 17 November he paid a number of what must be legacies, in each case being refunded the same day by the bank, here given its formal name "Samuel Smith Esq & Co." (These legacies do not correspond with my notes of the Will and codicils, and I wonder if they were the result of a decision taken by the Executors.) The payments were:

• £50 each to John Hutchinson and Thos Goodwin
• £25 to Mary Upton
• £10 each to Margaret Bradwell, William Bradwell, and Mary Sprouge

On 19 Nov Walter paid Jno(?) Peet  5 guineas "for taking an Inventory of the effects and furnish of a copy of the same, and on 21 Nov he paid Thomas Freeman £6 1s 2d for a half year land tax (6s 2d) and assessed tax £5 15s, a larger amount namely £11 0s 6d being refunded to him by the bank (not understood). On 27 Nov he paid postage 11d and on 3 Dec he paid ?Messrs Lockwood £5 for the quit rent due to Magdalen College at Michaelmas.

(Note: Notts Archives have a valuation by John Peet of personal effects etc., dated 1838)

(Note: Thomas Freeman is mentioned several times. I just guess that perhaps he was an agent for Magdalen College?)

At the end of this double page Walter noted he had received £495 1s 10d and spent £401 12s 6 1/2d

Fifth double page

On Dec 2 Walter paid 3d for the Receipt stamp for John Husband's legacy, and three days later paid the legacy itself, five pounds.

At the year end Walter evidently turned his attention to the agricultural side of TB's affairs. On 31 December he paid £193 1s 3d "by balance of sundry accounts with T. Forrest as audited and allowed by Geo. Beaumont" and he also paid one John Marriott 9s 6d for something I cannot make out.

(Note: George Beaumont here means the Land Surveyor and co-executor, my great-great-grandfather)

Also on Dec 31, 1835 Walter entered up that he had received rents of TB's [Car] Colston, Screveton etc estate up to the 25 August last, totalling £172-0-0. Also that had sold 58 sheep and 2 cows for £93 1s and two pigs for £4 19s. He had also received £10 for something I cannot make out, looking like cartage(?) of Lucern(?) up to 25 August. And he had sold wool for £9 5s and kids for £1 3s 4d. I wonder if he meant lambs rather than kids. These sales will have taken place at different times over the previous months.

Moving into 1836, on 2 January Walter refunded 9s 6d which was the cost of painting of his bookcase which by mistake had been charged in the expenses account by T Freeman.

And on Jan 6 Walter paid £150 in at Sam Smith & Co in Nottingham. He also paid £1 4s 6d to John Staveley ???tion and 11s 8d to B Boothby & Co for three cast iron fire backs.

On 13 January Walter paid a bill of £29 5s from Thos Earnshaw Marble & Stone Mason, which was £7 15s for [the] Monument and £21 10s for "stone laying round the house etc."

(Note: according to the information on the Southwell Churches website, “Booth, Nottingham” was the maker of the Monument in the church, perhaps meaning the top part of it, which was placed after the death of TB's wife in 1830 (see below)) (References in Notts Archives suggest that Thomas Earnshaw, a builder, moved to America in the 1840s) (I am wondering if the fire backs were for some purpose connected with the monument or for closing the vault, the entrance to which was presumably from outside of the church, north side of the chancel).

On 15 Jan Walter paid Thos Freeman's balance in full £6 4s.

At the bottom he noted that he had received £815 4s 8d and spent £787 8s 8 ½

Sixth double page

On Jan 18 1836 Walter paid 2s 6d to Revd Mr Hutchins for certificates of TB's funeral.

Various other payments - on 30 Jan £2 18s to George Skinner, cooper; on Feb 2 £5 8s 6d to John Brown of Bingham; on 3 Feb £3 0s 3d to Rich Richardson blacksmith.

On 16 Feb Walter paid £11 13s 6d to John Challand plumber, and collected this back from Smiths

1836 must have been a leap year, for on 29 February Walter paid William Wright & Wright & Thompson in full as per their bills the large amount of £330 7s. (Note - William Wright an eminent Nottingham surgeon was in partnership with a surgeon / apothecary named Joseph Thompson). Smiths Bank refunded Walter for this the same day.

On March 14 Walter paid John Gilbert bricklayer in full £6 17s (??perhaps for closing the vault back up??) and on 31st he paid 9s 9d for eleven receipt stamps.

Then there is gap timewise until 27 April 1836 when Walter notes that he has received £264 7s 3d from Mr Hassall, the "payment of his promissory note £250" and four years interest £14 7s 3d (I calculate this means the interest rate was only about 1.5 per cent per annum). On the same day Walter paid Mr Hassall £8 8s 11d for timber bought of the Earl of Chesterfield for fences.

At the bottom Walter noted having collected £1,421 12s 5d and spent £1,156 14s1 ½d.

Seventh Double page

On April 29 1836 Walter paid Bentley Wright apothecary £1 7s 6d and on May 4 he paid John Challand for repairs (of something I cannot make out) as per bill, 12s 6d

On 2 May he paid £200 into the bank of Saml Smith Esq & Co.

On 11 May Walter paid T Forrest's bills for various agricultural things - "articles etc used for fencings" -Hardston for staves £2 18s 4d; Smith for line 11s 4d; Doncaster for bricks £5 1s; F Pepper 8 days16s. Total £10 2s 8d.

The same day Walter paid Mr Hutchins half of the years rent of the ?Ship on the ?Lucern in full £1 10s (note - I have not understood this at all, the first word could be Slip and the other word might be simply Lawn.

18 May Walter Paid Jno Gilbert bricklayer for lengthening the fence wall against Kilner Green etc as per bill £2 0s 6d (Note "Kilner Green" seems clear).

21 May Walter paid Thomas Freeman half years land tax 6s 2d and half years assessed ditto £5 15s Total £6 1s 2d.

There are no receipts noted on this double page.

At the bottom Walter noted total outlay of £1,378 8s 5 ½d.

Eighth double page

On June 8 1836 Walter paid Samuel Herod 14 shillings for 550 bricks for the pillars at the iron gates (Note: Notts Archives has the Will of Samuel Herod of East Bridgford, Brick & Tile Maker, 1855)

11 June 1836 Walter entered that he had received £5 of Josh Upton (?) one year's interest on £100 on mortgage due at Lady Day last.

On July 18 he paid Thomas Freeman in full as per bill £3 18s 9d.

On 19 July Paid Mr Hutchins for charge for permitting the second inscription on the monument £2 (see note above; the monument had been placed after the death of TB's wife in 1830; the additional panel below it referring to TB himself is presumably what is meant here).

Oct 20 Paid T Earnshaw builder pd & receipt dated 28 Nov £10 exactly.

Oct 31 Paid Josh Adams for valuation of leasehold estate at Hawksworth one guinea. [This was a tenancy held from the bishop Lincoln]

Nov 10 Walter Paid £54 12s "to Mrs Hulse by the hands of Mr Hassall one years payment as per legacy bequeathed to her by Revd Thos Beaumont" and on the same day he got £54 3s from Smiths bank, to reimburse this, which he had paid by means of his own cheque to John Hassall. But there is a discrepancy in the two amounts. A year's worth of the legacy, which was a guinea a week, would come to £54 12s.

On 28 November Walter paid 8s to Jo: Brown for 2 cows serving.

He concludes this page with totals received £1,480 15s 5d and spent out  £1,451 2s 2 ½d.

Ninth double page

On April 26, 1837 Walter paid (the doctor) Mr William Wright 10s 6d for a visit etc to Mrs Hulse on 31 August 1835.

An entry on Sept 3 1838 reads "Loss by light Gold" 1s 2d. (Note: I have not researched what this means but it is perhaps a tax of some kind to compensate the State for payments that may have been made to it earlier using defaced or impure currency. The notebook does not record who Walter paid this to).

The only further transactions on this page concern the annuity payments to Mrs Hulse. In each case the payment was made to John Hassall, and was refunded by the bank. These payments were

£45 12s on August 21 refunded on Sept 15 1837 (up to 25 Aug).

1838 May 22 38 weeks of payments in full to this day £39 18s, refunded same day.

1839 Febr 19 Paid to Mrs Hulse by the hands of Mr Hassall 39 weekly payments £40 19s, refunded same day.

Oct 15 Paid ditto ditto 34 weeks due this day £35 14s refunded same day.

1840 March 2 Paid ditto ditto 13 weeks in full 13 guineas refunded 22 March [in pencil – this cheque was dated 22 March instead of 2nd by mistake].

(Note. The Nottingham Journal of 17 January 1840 reported the death of Mrs Jane Hulse, at an advanced age, at her brother's house at Carrington, housekeeper to the late Rev TB of Bridgford Hill, to whom she had been a faithful servant....)

The Account ends after the March 1840 payment, which no doubt paid the annuity to Mrs Hulse's death.

The account is not balanced or totalled. There is no evidence of pages torn out after this

(I think Walter Beaumont lived at Bridgford Hill until he himself died in April 1841. His youngest brother Abel had died in Jan. 1838. George and his family moved in during 1841. George being the nephew of TB, Walter, and Abel, son of their brother Richard Beaumont of Birmingham).

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

The next couple of pages of the book contain a similar but briefer account in the handwriting of my uncle Richard Melville Beaumont, of transactions with the executors of his late father, my grandfather, in 1952.

Beyond that the rest of the book is unused.

EMB 14 March 2021

Agnes of Beaumont-le-Richard

Beaumont-le-Richard is in the north west part of Calvados, only few kms from the coast, in a commune called Englesqueville-la-Percee. It is marked on Stapleton's map as Bellusmons.

The castle site is a small hill next to a marsh, which indicates a watercourse that may have been navigable for the small vessels of the Viking and Norman period.

from topographic-map.com. The castle site is shown as 63 ft and the
surrounding marsh area about 20 ft, above sea level.

At an early date Aethelwold the chamberlain (of the bishop of Bayeux) is mentioned in connection with Anglicivilla (Englesqueville-la-Percée) (Haskins, Norman Institutions p.63; also Domesday People).

The fee of "Aeloudi Camerarii" was held from and owed military service to the diocese of Bayeux in 1133. The service owed is inconsistently stated in two printed sources as either three or eight knights (Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall vol. 2 p.645; Historiens de France vol. xxiii p.698). I doubt if Aethelwold was still living in 1133. This may be a case where the identity of a former holder is still remembered.

As a working theory (far from proven) Aethelwold may have left co-heiresses one of whom was the ancestress of the lady who is central to this piece. This is the kind of family tree I suggest:-

• Aethelwold the chamberlain
• Daughter - took lands in England initially to Robert Latimer
• Daughter - took lands in Normandy to unknown husband
• Daughter married Engelram son of Jordan de Say
• Agnes de Bellomonte m. Richard du Hommet Constable of Normandy
• William du Hommet Constable of Normandy
• other sons Richard, Jordan, Thomas, Engelram, Henry, William

Approach to Beaumont-le-Richard from south (Google street scene)

The heiress of Beaumont-le-Richard

However it came about, the heiress of the place was Agnes de Bellomonte, and she was also the heiress of Jordan de Say, of Aunay-sur-Odon. Agnes' husband was Richard du Hommet, Constable of Normandy. They married by about 1150, perhaps as early as c.1135.

It seems reasonable to suggest that the designation "-le-Richard" comes from Agnes' husband, and that one or more of the surviving buildings date from his lifetime.

Sam and Caroline Beaumont at Beaumont-le-Richard in the mid 1990s.

A return of 1172 states that Ricardus de Hummeto owed "servitium corporis sui de honore de Bello Monte" (Red Book ed.Hall vol. 2 p.630; Historiens de France xxiii p.695).

Agnes had inherited other lands which are beyond the scope of this piece but it is worth noting that she had her own seal for executing documents. One such relating to lands not far from Oxford is marked with the legend "agnetis de bellomonte" and is on a document which I understand survives in the National Archives (E 40/6865; Cat. Anc. Deeds, vol. 4, no. 6865). 

Richard "de Humet" issued a charter in 1174 apud Bellummontem [at Beaumont] (Round, Cal. Docs. France no. 552) (d’Anisy, MSAN 8 pp.71-72).

After a career serving Henry II, Richard du Hommet entered Aunay-sur-Odon Abbey in about 1180 and was succeded by William. I suspect Agnes had already died. 

Although Agnes is often said to have been daughter of Jordan de Say, and she was his heiress, I suggest she was daughter of Jordan's eldest son Engelram. I suggest Engelram's wife brought Beaumont-le-Richard to him, for it does not seem to have ever been held by Jordan.  I suggest something like:- 

• Jordan de Say
• Gilbert de Say (childless)
• Engelram de Say (married heiress at Englesquville & Beaumont)
• Agnes (married Richard du Hommet)

(I am aware that Clay (EYC 7 p.32) thought Agnes to be daughter of Gilbert de Say. Query).

Aerial view of Beaumont-le-Richard (internet)

The Barfleur-Portchester connection

Richard and then his son William du Hommet were in turn the "Constable" of Normandy and ran Portchester castle for the Crown in the time of kings Henry II, Richard, and (till 1204) John.

Barfleur to Portsmouth Harbour (Portchester) was the main route across the channel in that period. William du Hommet was a benefactor to Southwick Priory near Portchester and his wife Lucy was buried there.

There was a family of Hommet tenants called Meisnil, one of whom in the 1190s gave Southwick priory his body and rents at Maisy next to "Bellusmons" with the consent of his lord, William du Hommet who then confirmed that (K. A Hanna, Cartularies of Southwick Priory, III no. 324, no.55).

It remains to be considered whether various Beaumonts who are found at later dates near Portchester and in other charters of Southwick priory had any link, perhaps through the Hommets, to Beaumont-le-Richard, or to the Beaumonts in my previous piece, who hailed from very near Barfleur.

EMB 12 March 2021

• In respect of the 1172 information given above, the index to Historiens de France vol. xxiii at p.834 identifies the place as Beaumont-Hague, near Cherbourg, which is wrong.

The Twelfth Century Beaumonts of the NE part of the Cotentin

Néville-sur-mer (Neevilla - Nigel's town) sits on the north coast of the Cotentin peninsular, east of Cherbourg.

William the monk (this appears to be a name he adopted, not an indication of his profession) in the early 1160s founded a chapel "on his domaine" in the parish of Néville (Drouet p.407). He was the son of Richard de Ansgerville (Angoville-en-Saire?) and his second wife Mabilia, whose father was called Rogo son of Nigel. 

It appears that -

• William had a sister who had married someone called Beaumont, and that - 
• his mother must have had an interest at Néville which descended to him.

It also appears that William the monk did not marry, for his heirs were four brothers called Beaumont, referred to as his nephews (nepotes) and vice versa he as their uncle (avunculus). The oldest brother, the senior heir, was called Thomas. This "family tree" is built up from information in Montebourg and Saint-Sauveur charters, first seen in "Domesday Descendants."

• Nigel
• Rogo
• Mabilia m. Richard de Ansgerville (his 2nd wife)
• William the monk
• Lady m. Beaumont
• Thomas de Beaumont & three brothers

Possibly the William de Beaumont who gave a share in the mill of "Aldulvilla" to Montebourg Abbey (in the 1080s? - no later than 1107) was of this family (BNFr MS Lat 10087 no.141) (sometimes "Aldubvilla" - usually identified as Audouville-la-Hubert, but why not Saint-Martin-d'Audouville?).

The chapel William the monk established at Néville-sur-mer was associated with Montebourg Abbey, and various property was given. In several of William's own charters the consent of Thomas de Beaumont and sometimes also his brothers Philip, Juhel, and Godfrey, was recorded.

There is a place called Beaumont near Hacouville not very far away from Néville-sur-mer.

Beaumont, Hacouville, Manche (Google street scene)

The names of the Beaumont brothers here correspond intriguingly to those of people found in England. Those connexions seem mainly to be with Devon (another piece needed about that), but not exclusively so. Surely the William the Monk and Thomas de Beaumont his nephew who sold their interest at Staining, Lancashire, to John Constable of Chester (see my piece dated 27 February 2021) must be the same people as here. 

And Thomas and Philip may well be the two mentioned in my piece dated 30 January 2021. A particular reason for thinking so is that the charter discussed there was a gift to St. Sauveur abbey, to which same abbey William the monk gave his house at Barfleur, that charter being witnessed by all of the Beaumont brothers.

From Stapleton's map

Drouet noted -

• that Philip de Beaumont (whom he identified as the nephew of William the monk), was still living in 1217, when he permitted Montebourg abbey to allow the chapel to be served by secular priests
• and that Thomas (identified as the son of the above Philip) gave four acres in 1248 and went on the crusade with "Saint-Louis" (King Louis IX of France)
• and that in 1281 the lord of Néville was Richard de Beaumont, a knight. Along with Beaumont a la Hague, Fermanville, the Rethoville, Néville appears to have passed with an heiress to a family called Argouges a generation or so later (Drouet p.410, p.420). "Le fief de Beaumont-en-Néville" is mentioned (eg p.411) but it doesn't seem clear if that is a separate place or a family reference.

As and when I can transcribe the Montebourg charters, I think it will become clear whether anything can be added to what is in Drouet's book.

As to Beaumont-Hague. This place is marked "Bellusmons" on Stapleton's map, and the "lieu-dit" Beaumont near Hacouville is not. We are familiar with the name of a landowning family being used to distinguish places with otherwise common names - Stanton Harcourt, Newton Reigny. The name Hague is attached to several places in that high ground NW corner of the Cotentin, and indeed to that area as a whole. I think the name is connected with Scandinavian words meaning enclosure - a common enough concept. I wonder if this is a case where a place is simply being tagged with the surname of the then owner - to avoid confusion with other places called Hague.  Which Stanton, you ask? The Harcourt one. Which bit of Hague? The Beaumont bit. Another example: Theurtheville-Hague and Theurtheville-Bocage. Any views, anyone?

Sources include:-

Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants." This was the starting point.

Cartulaire de Montebourg, BN Fr MS Latin 10087, charter numbers 422ff (I have full copies now but have not yet transcribed them fully). 

Cartulaire de Saint-Sauveur, BN Fr MS Latin 17137, fol. 246r/v.

Memoires de la Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie vol. 22 (1856) p.21.

Louis Drouet, (1893) Recherches Historiques... Saint-Pierre-Eglise. He cited as his sources documents in a "Repertoire" by M. de Gerville, which I think consisted of transcripts of the Montebourg charters. Although Drouet in several places links this Beaumont family with Hague, it would be surprising if he did not know of the place mentioned above, which is surrounded by or adjacent to a number of other places he does mention.

Thomas Stapleton's map "Tabula Normanniae sub Regibus Angliae" (faces title page in Powicke's "Loss of Normandy").

EMB 10 March 2021

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