William "the Monk" and the Beaumonts - an original charter

Please read this as a follow-up in particular to what I wrote on 10 March 2021 - https://beaumontarchives.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-twelfth-century-beaumonts-of-ne.html

I discovered what seems a significant charter for the history of our family (in the most extended sense), in Cornwall's archives - https://kresenkernow.org/SOAP/detail/608be59d-7882-48b5-aba8-088a98d522d3/?tH=%5B%22william%20the%20monk%22%5D

By this charter, William "the Monk" gives Néville-sur-mer priory fifteen shillings a year rent from a place called Estintonie. William's nephew Thomas de Bellomonte gives his consent and other members of his family are witnesses (1).

(1) Their names are rendered as "Belin" in the catalogue summary but I am confident of their identity as there is so much other context that fits.

Néville-sur-mer priory was a dependency of Montebourg abbey. The gift was known about from the Montebourg charters (2) and in a confirmation by Henry II (3), but the place was not identified.

(2) The Montebourg Cartulary is MS Lat. 10087 in the Bibliotheque Nationale Francaise... including:- (no.422 on page 139):- I William monachus for salvation of my soul and that of my father and mother and all my antecessors with the assent and consent of Thomas & Philip de Bello mo'te my nephews…  in the parish of Nigeville  …… chapel …. Mary Magdalene.. ……. ? tenth penny of ?manor  of Estintona ........

BN Fr. MS Lat.10087 no.422 (part)

 

BN Fr. MS Lat.10087 no.422 (part)

(3) 1174 x 1182 ........ Ex dono Willelmi Monachi, capellam Sancte Marie Magdalene de Nigelvilla, cum ecclesia ejusdem ville ...... et in Anglia, in manerio de Extintona, terram que reddit annuatim XV. solidos (University of Caen "Scripta" database, no.7250). 

It seems what Kresen Kernow (Cornwall's Archive Centre) has (their ref AR/1/828) is the actual charter, or a counterpart of it from the original time. The foundation of Néville priory was confirmed in a charter dated 1163. (4)

(4) No. 45 on pp.27-28 of the cartulary - charter of R. bishop of Coutances.

I am fairly sure it means Ilsington in Devon (not far off the A38 between Plymouth and Exeter), which was Lestintone in Domesday Book. The tenant in chief there then was Ralph Pagnell, but it must have passed into the Honour of Plympton, which was created by Henry I for Richard de Reviers (5), who was actually the patron of Montebourg Abbey. Richard was foremost amongst the "new men" Henry I brought from the Cotentin (6). It is no surprise that benefits should trickle down to middle-ranking players.

(5) see Sanders, English Baronies p.137.

(6) see eg Judith Green, The Government of England under Henry I, pp. 146-147.

Incidentally, one of the witnesses to the Cornwall charter is called Robertus villanus, and a man of that name also witnesses another charter of William "the monk" (Archives Manche H.2439). 

After the "Loss" of Normandy (1204) Montebourg Abbey might no longer have been able to collect the money from Ilsington or be the owner of the manor (7).

(7) As it lost Loders in Dorset (Digital Humanities Institute, Sheffield, Lands of the Normans database).

The family of Beaumont, the heirs of William "the Monk," might have been split, some on each side of the English channel. Not much later, Beaumonts are known to have been at Ilsington or at Ingsdon nearby. An example reference is that in about 1242 a Philip de Bellomonte was holding a knights fee in Ilsington of the Plympton honour. (8)

(8) Testa de Nevill p.182; Book of Fees p.790.

I visited Ilsington church in 1990 and took this photo of the coat of arms on the end of a bench. I had been told that this was the arms of the Beaumonts in question. I have no idea if that is true!! I am sceptical.

A share in Ilsington eventually came to the Arundell family, a fact which presumably explains how the document came into their archives, and thus how it has survived to this day!

This document is a useful discovery. My thanks to Jennie Hancock, archivist at Kresen Kernow.

EMB 10 November 2021

Chateau Gaillard - after the end of the siege

One of the very few dated early references we have is the information of 23 May 1205, which I will come to at the end, relating to William, the "First Yorkshire Beaumont," about whom I put some references on this blog on January 31, 2021.

It is clear from those that William was a retainer in some shape or form of Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester, and it is clear from many other references that Roger commanded Chateau-Gaillard for king John until he had to surrender it on or about 6 March 1204 after a long siege.

From Achille Deville's book (Rouen, 1829)
on the castle and siege

The chronicle of William the Breton states that at the very end, when the French entered the castle, they took as prisoners forty knights, one hundred and twenty men at arms "and many others."

Another French chronicler, Rigord, says that there were thirty-six knights, four having been killed.

The commander, Roger, is the only one of the defenders mentioned by name in the French texts. He is identified as the Constable of Chester in some of the English texts and from other sources.

An unlikely version of the story is that the defenders charged out of the castle and killed many Frenchmen before being taken prisoner. More likely they were weak from lack of food, as there had been no supplies for months and indeed the whole objective of the French had been to starve them into submission.

As to what happened to these captives after their surrender, the French sources say little (note 1). Writers and translators north of the English channel adopt one of two extremes -  the captives were either held in chains, or they were held on parole or "free custody" in recognition of their bravery. 

The text from the monk of Waverley is Sicque præfatus Rogerus cum militibus sibi associatis vinculis enormiter mancipatus est.

That from Roger of Wendover is et Rogerus de Lasci cum suis omnibus in Franciam adductus, rege Francorum jubente, propter probitatem suam, quam in castri custodia fecerat, sub libera custodia detentus est. 

"Vinculis enormiter" is not "enormous chains." "Vinculis" means bonds but not necessarily physical restraint, whilst "enormiter" means out of the usual. I prefer something like "My word is my bond," the word of an officer and gentleman!

The concept of free custody then makes sense, and can be compared to the rule that a knight, when charged with a debt claim, was to be trusted not to abscond before the hearing (Dialogus de Scaccarii Part II Section XXI). Perhaps then the Waverley text has simply been misunderstood (Note 2).

Certainly, a ransom must have been paid. Six thousand marks is the figure given by one chronicler. The public records suggest less, but still a huge sum.

Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833), vol. 1 page 4b
August 7, 1204, at Northampton

My reading of this is that Robert fitzRoger (a well-known north of England baron) had pledged the £1000 but is now being released (his charter to be delivered to him) - perhaps the king has decided to meet the cost of Roger's "redemption."

Roger de Lacy was apparently back in England by October of 1204 since he witnessed an order issued at Lambeth on 13th of that month. Thereafter he is seen a good deal in the public records. An invasion into Normandy was planned, and I suspect Roger was asked to lead it. Extensive planning took place in the first half of 1205, including the country being ordered to supply one knight in ten (at the cost of the other nine).

Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833) vol. 1, page 29b
29 April 1205, from Windsor

A preliminary muster was to take place at Northampton in mid May, and the above shows essential supplies - wine! - being sent there. That is where and when the king issued this order to the sheriff of York:- 

".... qd resp'ctu hre facis Willo de Bello Mo'te de x marcas quas debet Judis Ebor et quiet' ee facias de usur illi debiti q'diu fuit ult mare cu' equis & armis in svicio nro p pceptu nrm”

..... to give respite to William de Beaumont for ten marks which he owes [debet - present tense] to the Jews at York and to free him from the interest on the same debt so long as he was [fuit - past tense] beyond the sea with horses and arms in our service by our command"

Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum (1833), vol. 1, page 33b
23 May 1205, from Northampton

The order was to be carried out through none other than the Constable of Chester (the letter like a 9 there means "Con"), who was present that day, and who moreover, had the title of sheriff of York, and thus will have passed the order to his deputy!

What this proves is that William (note 3) had been serving overseas. It suggests that Roger was in some way interested. It does not prove that William had been one of Roger's companions in Normandy, or that it was intended he would go back there with him! But it hints towards one or both of those things, maybe.

The royal party proceeded south to Winchester and Portsmouth, and there is ample evidence that Roger Constable of Chester was involved, certain rewards and benefits being dished out to him as the military and naval plans were progressed. But in mid June the planned Normandy invasion was cancelled at the last minute (Note 4).

........

Lastly, as an open question, I wondered if there were any clues at all as to the identity of any of Roger's other companions in Chateau-Gaillard. I am afraid the answer is - nothing found. Two particular names strike me as possibles - Colin de Quatremares (also called Colin de Damelville), and Henry de Longchamp. Both these men witnessed the grant of land at Huddersfield by Roger to William (Dodsworth MS 133 f.114). Colin also received a grant of land at Huddersfield from Roger, whilst Henry was apparently with the 1205 Normandy expedition when it was called off (Note 5).

.......

Note 1. Except that one rather colourful account speaks of "the castellan," who had said he would only be dragged out by his feet, actually being in the pay of the French king afterwards, at doubled wages. This is from Ruville, quoting from Les Vraies Chroniques de Normandie depuis Robert le Diable jusqu'en 1212, c.15 copy fonds français, Bibliothèque Richelieu.

Note 2. Text attributed to Roger of Wendover, speaking of events of 1203, has certain prisoners at Compiegne detained in vinculis arctissimis. A little later in the same text, Roger and the other prisoners taken at Chateau Gaillard are treated very differently - sub libera custodia.

Note 3. Surely the WB who is the subject of this order is the Yorkshire one. There were a Norfolk father and son both of the same name but they had no connection with Roger, and there are numerous reasons for saying it does not refer to either of them.

Note 4. The plan had been a "pincer movement," landing both in Normandy and Poitou. It seems that ships had already put to sea, from Portsmouth, before the king accepted advice, and cancelled the Normandy expedition, which is no doubt the part Roger would have been involved in. Between about 13 and 19 June 1205 the royal party seems to have been at sea.  On 19 and 20 June at "Dertem'" (?Dartmouth in Devon), Roger was a senior witness (Rotuli Chartarum p.155) (but Chroniclers put the landing in Dorset).

Note 5. On 22 June 1205 Henry was let off some commitments he had earlier made (Rot.Lit. Cur.i.38), a classic way of recompensing someone for wasted expenses.

Sources

To give particular sources in the proper academic style would take up a lot of space. I have made use of the numerous chronicles in various French and English editions (thank you, Hathitrust), public records including Patent and Close Rolls, Deville's book on Chateau-Gaillard, Brossard de Ruville's book on "La Ville Andelis...," an excellent online translation of the Dialogue of the Exchequer from the Yale Avalon Law project, several biographies of king John, Powicke's "Loss of Normandy," Norgate's "England under Angevin Kings," the Thesis by Andrew Connell on the Constables of Chester, and so on.

Much information has been translated for me from French by Caroline.

EMB 26 September 2021

The first Whitley Charters (7) - the service

I think that as at c.1220-1230) Whitley was held in effect directly from the lord of Pontefract (John de Lacy), some by the father of the Dransfeld brothers, and some by Peter de Birthwaite, with no effective intermediate holder. And Whitley was not their only holding. Dransfield senior, and Peter, then die. Then-

A. Charter 1. William de Dransfeld grants the Whitley land he has inherited from his father to his [younger] brother Thomas

B. Lost Charter. Thomas de Dransfeld obtains a grant of Whitley land from the Birthwaite family

C. Charter 2. The Earl buys both these lots of Whitley land from Thomas

D. Charter 3. The Earl grants the land to John Muncebote / Mucenbot with permission to designate William de Beaumont as his heir

E. Charter 4. John Mucenbot / Muncebote confirms Beaumont as his heir.

Sub-infeudation

Although I think John de Lacy had been able to do away with the old middle interests (see previous note), he now begins to create new ones.

Each change of ownership that was not an inheritance, is not seen as a transfer, but as a grant of a junior interest (a new link in the chain). Some sort of additional service arises each time. It soon becomes unworkable. Imagine if each time people moved house, they were unable to sell the property, but could only let it.

New chains developed, so that within a couple of generations things must have become as unworkable as before, and the chief lords such as John de Lacy's descendants were soon finding they were unable to collect or enforce what they felt should be due to them such as wardships, escheats, and control  of marriages. 

So they got the law reformed in 1290 by a Statute known as Quia Emptores. Transfers were now allowed, and sub-infeudations banned. All the services would be due to the chief lord, rather than to middle men. This put the great lords much more back in control.

To return to the particular services in this case.

A. A pound of cumin to William de Dransfeld and his heirs

This is first reserved in charter no. 1 (WBD/IX/2) and repeated in charter no. 3 (WBD/IX/1) as due to William and his heirs, though actually in Dodsworth's transcript of William's own charter (MS 133 fo. 117v; WBD/IX/2) it is clearly half a pound of silver (half a pound of cumin in the Catalogue entry for WBD/IX/2). I don't know if the pound is by weight or value.

Cumin seems to me like a luxury item. I don't know if it was just a symbolic thing. But even today we still hear of a "peppercorn rent."

Dransfield Hill Farm (top of map below) is the name of an ancient farm near Whitley

Ordnance Survey 6 ins to the mile. Thanks to maps.nls.uk.

Thomas son of Hugh de Dransfeld had given Byland Abbey some property in Whitley between about 1206 and 1211 (Yorkshire Deeds, 6, no. 540 - in the BL Add Ch series that I mentioned in the previous note). In his own charter William gives Thomas as his father's name. I think William is the eldest son, granting the Whitley part of his inheritance to his brother. 

A family tree that I found online seems to have skipped a generation. For what it is worth I suggest:-

• 1. Hugh de D of Whitley (late c12); father of 
• 2. Thomas (donor to Byland); father of 
• 3. William (granted Whitley to his brother and moved to Bretton); and 
• 3. Thomas (acquired more land at Whitley and sold all to John de Lacy).

Over a hundred years later the Beaumonts' interest at Whitley was still held from the Dransfields (now of Bretton). This is proved by a statement in a "Rental" dated 1370 of the estates of John de Dronsfeld (the spelling is variable):

Brianne de Stapelton knight holds the manor of Whitlay‑beaumond by knight service and renders per annum one pound sterling and for castle ferm 10s.on the feast of St. Martin. 

(Sir Brian Stapleton  controlled the Beaumonts' estates at that time, due to their misdeeds and misfortunes)

(The text of it this Rental and some commentary was published in Old West Riding Magazine vol. 5 no.1 (Summer 1985) by John Addy and Elizabeth Gibson. The Rental was amongst the Bretton Hall / Allendale archives at the Yorks Arch Soc., part of reference BEA/C3/B31, and should now and in future have reference WYW/1849/xxx at West Yorkshire Archives. As at 17 July 2021 it was still not in the online catalogue.) 

(I do wonder if the pound sterling is an update of the pound of cumin, and if the ten shillings for castle farm is an update on one of the other older services). 

B. Ten shillings to the heirs of Peter de Birthwaite

This service is mentioned in Charter No. 2 (WBD/IX/3) but I think must have been reserved first in a now missing charter. Besides getting his brother's interest at Whitley, Thomas de Dransfeld also bought something there from the Birthwaites. He then sold the combined estate to the earl, who paid twenty marks to him according to Dodsworth's transcript of the charter.

My reading from Yorkshire source books such as EYC III is that Peter of Birthwaite had died in about 1230 leaving a daughter Juliana who married one John de Rockley. 

The money apparently continued to be paid from the Beaumonts to the Rockleys as Peter's heirs. This is suggested by the fact that an (assumed) descendant and heiress Alice, daughter of Peter de Rockley, is found in 1320, when certain service due to her was said to include the homage and service of Sir Robert de Beaumont for land held at Whitley.

From Cal. Close Rolls 1318-1323 p.220

The name of Birthwaite, Birkethwaite etc may have been confused by some writers with eg Birthwistle or Briestwistle.

C. White gloves at Easter

This is the particular service reserved by the Earl in charter no. 3 - the one granting Whitley to John Mucenbote.

White gloves is quite clearly what RHB read, and the latin text from Dodsworth, partly lost in a fold, looks like duas cirotecas albas. I understand that chirotecae means the liturgical silk gloves worn at Easter by Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals. The translation in the Archives Catalogue is "vestments" but I don't accept that. 

Rent of liturgical gloves is not that unusual.  It is more than a token since the gloves would be expensive. However to some extent as with the cumin, it must be symbolic.

D. The foreign service

This service is mentioned in several of the charters as being in addition to the service arising from the grant in question.

Foreign or "Forinsec" service means, I think, in this context, the service due to the chief lords (Pontefract). It might be defined as the service due to any lord further up the chain than the immediate one. It certainly does not mean just service outside of England. 

The Earl bought the land of which he was already the chief lord. Today, if a Landlord buys the interest of his Tenant, the lease will cancel itself, but this is clearly not how they saw it. When the Earl granted the property to John Mucenbote, the older services due to Dransfeld and Birthwaite had survived.

The "foreign service"was reserved or preserved (saved) expressly in Charter no. 1 when William de Dransfeld sold to his brother (Dodsworth MS 133 fo.117v)(catalogue summary DD/WBD/IX/2). 

I think the translations that say that the Earl acquits the land from some of these services are incorrect. The service is saved or preserved, so that the new holders have to do that as well as the service to the intermediate people.

It is not very clear what the Forinsec service exactly was, perhaps a fraction of a knights fee.

E. No service due to John Mucenbote's heirs

No additional service is due from William de Beaumont, to John Mucenbote's heirs. William is treated as John's heir. Whether or how he was related to John Mucenbote may never be known.

The local historian Mrs Frances Collins about 100 years ago, suggested that the rent being white gloves shows that the grantee was considered one of the family. This was a plank in her argument that William de Beaumont was related to Adam FitzSwain, as (on this basis) was John, who she made out to be Roger de Montbegon's son. This is just fanciful. Anyway the gloves are the reserved service in the grant by the Earl to John Mucenbote, not the grant by him to William Beaumont!

Is this the site of Whitley Hall?

A final question might be whether we can identify the exact property to which these charters refer. I certainly can't. There was a "capital messuage" - this was included in charter no. 2 (Thomas to the Earl) and the subsequent charters. I don't see mention of it in Charter no. 1 so I do not know if it was included in the Dransfield part, or the Birthwaite part, of the estate. Anyway, that would not be enough to identify where this "capital messuage" stood. 

Also, whatever was meant by Whitley, there is nothing to suggest that these charters comprised the whole of it.

EMB 26 July 2021

The first Whitley Charters (6) - some historical background

To recap - John de Montbegon did not exist, but his supposed father Roger de Montbegon certainly did exist, and the name was given in a corrupt way in the Testa de Nevill, perhaps understandably leaving some antiquarians who looked at the Whitley charters confused.

The lands of Roger de Montbegon in the Pontefract honour were those of his mother Matilda. It is difficult to define what was meant by Whitley but there is plenty to suggest that it had been held in the twelfth century from Matilda's father Adam FitzSwain, and by him from the then lords of Pontefract. It seems likely, that Whitley was - a very minor - part of an enormous estate Adam held and which his ancestors had held since 1086 and perhaps since before 1066.

(There is a lot of "stuff" "out there" which one should ignore, including that William de Beaumont, the Whitley grantee, was a member of Adam's family. I do not agree with that.)

Adam had died in 1159 and Matilda was the younger of his two daughters. If we look at who were their representatives or descendants during the reigns of Richard (1189-1199). John (1199-1216), and at the time of the Whitley Charters, we see the unity of Adam's estate breaking down. 

Broadly it looks as though the estate was divided into two halves, for each daughter. The halves may have had their chief places at Mirfield and Brierley, but I don't think that division is rigid or clear. Moreover each half was soon divided again, effectively to people who did not live there and had plenty of landed interests elsewhere!

Do not quote from this since I have over-simplified it and have no doubt made mistakes! Here is the family tree chart as published over 100 years ago in Early Yorkshire Charters vol. III.

The feudal system meant that nobody really owned land. They "held" it from someone further up the chain. Nor I think could it change hands by outright sale. Any "grant" of land would put a new link into the chain.

The chain between the people on the ground, and the chief lord (in this case, of Pontefract), might have numerous links. Adam fitzSwain had been second from the top of that chain, and further down it were perhaps the predecessors of the Dransfelds and Birthwaites.

But since the succession from Adam was by inheritances, I think we could visualise the one strong link in the chain that he once was, being replaced by more and more bits of string, but weaker string each time, until it broke.

No intermediate / middle holders are referred to in these Whitley charters, other than the Dransfelds and the Birthwaites. It is as if the heirs of Adam fitzSwain have ceased to be relevant by the 1230s.

Is that so, and if so, why?

I think it is because of the events of King John's reign (rebellion of northern barons) and the sheer difficulty of recognising divided interests.

The old FitzSwain empire collapsed. Whitley was in one bit of it or the other. Since there were now perhaps dozens of people below the lords shown in the charts above, it would have been very hard to keep a track of who held what!

Rebel baron, or just nuisance

Another factor maybe is attempts by the Crown to confiscate lands of rebel barons, of which Roger de Montbegon is a notable example.

He was a nuisance to king Richard, as shown in the Pipe Roll for 1194 where his lands in West Yorkshire were nominally at least in the hands of a representative of the Crown. 

From Pipe Roll, 6 Richard (1194), p.12

(There can be no guarantee that the mention of Whitley there isn't to somewhere else, as it is a common-enough place-name.)

When John came to the throne Roger de Montbegon was a nuisance to him too. He was one of group of barons who tend to be called "The Northerners," the title of a detailed study by Professor J C Holt some thirty years ago.

Roger was present at Runnymede in June 2015 (the occasion of Magna Carta) and was also at Pontefract in January 1216 to "return" to the king's service, young John de Lacy doing the same.

From Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, i, p. 244. This seems not
to refer to his lands in Yorkshire, but it illustrates the
number of other counties where he had interests!

King John died with a year of the above and his "dear and faithful" Roger de Montbegon was now a nuisance to the young Henry III, whose officials ordered his lands to be delivered to one Robert de Vallibus (Rot. Lit. Claus i., 327), orders which may have made little difference at the local level.  Roger was a bit of a dinosaur by then.

Monks and iron works?

Another historical factor, but one I certainly don't yet understand, is that Byland abbey (sixty miles away, in North Yorkshire) acquired land in or very near Whitley, starting I think in the late twelfth century. A charter of John de Lacy's father Roger Constable of Chester confirms this (no later than 1211) and refers to land at Denby, Briestwistle and elsewhere including an unidentified "Whitacres" (EYC III no.1525). John, as earl of Lincoln, reconfirmed this between 1232 and 1240 (MS Dodsworth 133 f.140; YAJ 6 438; from BL Add Ch 7465); the same sort of date as the Whitley Charters. The monks had a Grange at Denby - at or near the place now called Grange Moor, barely a mile from the site of Whitley Hall.

Property had been given to Byland by both the Birthwaites and the Dransfelds amongst others (eg EYC III nos. 1807-1817) (YAJ 6 438) and eg by one William son of Alan of Whitley (Dodsw. MS 133 f.139). I think it has to do with iron mining. 

I have not yet seen the Byland Cartulary edited by Janet Burton and published in 2004.  There is a collection of Byland charters (BL Add Ch 7409-7482) (mentioned in the context of Denby in Upper Whitley - also cf Yorks Deeds 5 p.29, now BL Add Ch 66799), one of which is that of John de Lacy mentioned just above .

Though the Victoria County History (on Byland Abbey) links these charters to "Danby and Whitby," a number of charters from the BL Add Ch 7409-7482 series mentioned are set out Yorkshire Deeds, 6, nos. 74-80, 155-193,  248-251, and 540-543, and these refer to Denby near Whitley. These contain a few attestations by the William Beaumont of the circa 1250-1270 generation.

Where does this get us to?

There were profound changes during the reigns of Richard and John, and the old feudal structure of Adam FitzSwain's lands was increasingly forgotten about.  This opened up opportunities for big barons such as John de Lacy. He and his stewards would take more direct control and cut out distant middlemen.

Also I think that (a) the old antiquarians' knowledge that Whitley was somehow connected with Adam FitzSwain's lands, and (b) the similarity between the names Muncebote / Mucenbote and Montbegon - perhaps especially the way the latter name was rendered in the Testa de Nevill - go some way towards explaining the muddle.

EMB 26 July 2021

The first Whitley Charters (5) Muncebote or Montbegon

So was there anyone called John Muncebote?

Indeed there was, though it is a surname not often found, and the spelling varies.

In about 1218 John "Mucenbot" was accused of wounding and robbery:-

Rolls of the Justices in Eyre, Yorkshire 1218-1219, Selden Society, 1937, vol.56 (*1)

The things Hugh of Swillington accused him of taking have been translated as a brooch, a knife, and a headdress. John Mucenbot was acquitted. 

In one of the earlier pieces in this series I pointed to possible connections between him, people called Swillington, and the early Beaumonts.

I think the best or most correct rendering of his name is Mucenbot or Mucenbote. Dodsworth's transcript of John's own charter gives that spelling.

There are one or two other references to people with this surname, such as Nicholas Mucenbot who can be found in Cambridgeshire a generation before this (several references in the Pipe Rolls and Chancellors Roll).

Is Montbegon a real name?

Certainly, and a Roger de Montbegon (*2) was a "big shot" in the affairs of the north of England in the early thirteenth century who had land interests in very many places including near Whitley.

In some instances, that surname has been rendered as something rather like Muncebote. For example, in the Testa de Nevill, or Liber Feodorum (Book of Fees) (a collection of lists of feudal landholdings first printed in 1804), the name "Muncebech" appears (Testa de Nevill - 1807 edition - p.365, p.367) ("Muntebech'" where same info. in the more modern edition, known as the Book of Fees, p.1103).

This may be the trap some antiquarian historians fell in. I only guess, but I am thinking of Nichols and/or Whitaker. R.H. Beaumont did not fall into that trap.

But that particular reference without any doubt is to Roger de Montbegon and his successors (in his mother's lands) (see below).

Was there ever anyone called John de Montbegon?

In short, no there was not. It seems someone mixed up the names and assumed that John was Roger's son, a tempting theory. But the connexions between Roger de Montbegon's lands and those of later people such as the Beaumonts would need a whole book to try to write down seriously. 

Roger de Montbegon died in 1226. He left no children. A lot of the lands he had controlled in his lifetime were from his mother, and on his death, childless, they were inherited by her heirs in a complicated succession. Roger's own heir (for what came from his father, principally Hornby, Lancashire) was a distant relation called Henry de Monewden. (*3) 

If John de Montbegon existed and was Roger's son, he would have inherited Hornby Castle; if William de Beaumont had been John's heir, then he would have inherited it.

Roger de Montbegon's successors in his mother's lands were the husbands of her daughter and granddaughter from her second marriage. (*4)

(*1) Another - somewhat earlier, I think, reference to him, perhaps, is in another Selden Society volume of the "Pleas before the King....," 1952, vol.68, at page 26. The Selden Society volumes are not available online.

(*2) The name Montbegon, Monte Begonis, is from Mont Bougon between Argentan & Vimoutiers. The reasoning is given in Keats-Rohan's "Domesday People," page 405.

(*3) There are references in the Fine Rolls in April 1226 to Roger having died and in September 1226 to Henry de Monewden as his heir. The latter order was that after enquiries by law-worthy knights of the counties of Lincolnshire and Lancaster, it was established that Henry of Monewden is the cousin and the next heir of Roger de Montbegon of the lands and tenements that he held in chief of the king. Also from the Patent Rolls: - sine dilatione liberari faciat Henrico de Munegeden, heredi Rogeri de Monte Begonis [without delay deliver [Hornby Castle] to Henry de Monewden, the heir of Roger de Montbegon] (dated February and March 1227). I do not think Roger had held any lands in Yorkshire "in chief." The interests in the Pontefract honour were not held "in chief" and moreover he held them as heir of his mother,  so in his death they went to her next heirs.

(*4) Roger de Montbegon's mother was called Matilda. After he died her heirs were the people mentioned in the Testa de Nevill:- Eudes de Lungvillers (husband of Matilda's daughter Clementia de Malherbe) and Geoffrey de Neville (husband of Matilda's grand-daughter Mabel de la Mare). They each had two knights fees for the land of Roger "de Muncebech" (Testa de Nevill p.365 and p.367). For a family tree see Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. 3 p.318.

EMB 19 July 2021

The first Whitley Charters (4) - who says what

Back now to the question:- Muncebot or Montbegon - who says what?

The Muncebot camp 

1. Original charter, 1232 x 1240 (if catalogue, Dodsworth, RHB are correct)

2. Roger Dodsworth, 1629

3. Dugdale, 1665 or 1666 (as published by Surtees Society, 1859)

4. RHB, c.1796. He not only must have had the original charter in his house, but he had been an Oxford student and had no doubt seen Dodsworth's MSS.

5. G.W. Tomlinson, c.1884, from material written by RHB then still at Whitley and shown him by H.F. Beaumont (Yorks Arch Journal 8 p.501).

6. EMB, 2021 - count me in!

The Montbegon camp

1. John Nichols, c.1804 (History of Leicestershire, vol. 3 part 2 p.662)... This large-scale work was printed over the years 1795-1815, this particular part in 1804, but the work must have been done over many years before.

Why was this included in Nichols' monumental work on Leicestershire? Apparently only to demonstrate that the Beaumonts of Whitley were not the same family as those of Leicestershire. No source was given, save "Le Neve MS." Nichols' work on this looks out of date. The Family Tree set out there is carried down only to the death of RHB's father in 1764.  

Nichols, Leicestershire, Vol. 3 Part 2 (1804) p.662

2. Perhaps. Thomas Dunham Whitaker's Loidis & Elmete (1816), apparently p.342. Whitaker was a friend and respecter of RHB and his work. It seems surprising he should make such a mistake (and yet I think he is also responsible for some the Crusade muddle). Despite its name I believe the book covers more than just Leeds and Elmet, specifically including the Calder valley. I have not been able to access a copy to check what was cited by Ellis, who said "Although Dodsworth made abstracts of the evidences of Sir Richard Beaumont of Whitley when there 20 Aug., 1629, it is remarkable that he took no note of the important early charter given in Loidis & Elmete, p.342, which would seem to refer to the first acquisition there [Whitley] of the founder of the Beaumont family." There then follows a summary of the deed, naming the grantee as "John (de) Montebegon." Unless I can check the book I will not know what name Whitaker himself gave. (A.S. Ellis, in Yorks Arch Journal vol. 8 1884 pp. 501-2). 

Ellis' note seems doubly inaccurate in that Roger Dodsworth did note the deed! Also we get both names Montebegon and Muncebote on the same page here (Mr Ellis was the editor in this respect, I think). 

3. Frances Collins.... Parish Registers of Kirkburton, County York; With Appendix of Family Histories. Frances Anne Collins, editor. 1902. Volume 2. Appendix: cxcii-ccxvi.....Mrs Collins refers to Tomlinson for an earlier matter so I think in this case she merely took the information from YAJ vol. 8. But she adds the express (and wrong) statement that John was the childless son of Roger de Montbegon (see next article). Mrs Collins used this to support her spurious argument that the Beaumonts were descended from Adam fitzSwein.... "Why John de Montbegon treated William de Beaumont as near kin and made him his heir, gives the clue to the ancestry of William de Beaumont." Well, well.

4. Legh Tolson's 1929 History of Kirkheaton Church, p.116, which expressly states page 342 of Loidis & Elmete to be the source...... copied eg on Huddersfield Exposed website.

5. Internet copyists. Mrs Collins is all copied into "wikitree" where it has become "Montbegan." Oh dear.

EMB 18 July 2021

The first Whitley Charters (3) - two more Beaumonts

These discoveries arise from looking rather superficially at what can been seen about associates of the people concerned in the Whitley charters, including the witnesses - men who knew each other personally.

Swillington, and Hugh de Bellomonte

"Lord" William of Swillington attested both the grant by Thomas de Dransfeld to earl John de Lacy and the latter's grant to John Muncebote (Charter no.3) in the date range 1232-1240. 

It seems there was some "history" involving John Muncebote, the Beaumonts, and people called Swillington. I would not be surprised if they were all related one to another, maybe by marriage. 

John Muncebote had been accused of wounding a man back in 1218-1219 (see later in this series of articles), and that man was called Hugh of Swillington (son of Henry). 

Another case from 1218-1219 has a William of Swillington (son of Henry) answering for the chattels of a certain Hugh [de] Beaumont.  Maud, wife of one Robert of Thorpe, brought a complaint against Hugh for the death of her husband. Hugh was outlawed. William son of Henry of Swillington had received Hugh's chattels, valued at five shillings (Doris M Stenton (Ed.), Rolls of Justices in Eyre for Yorkshire, Selden Society vol. 56 (1937) no. 632. From a note I made many years ago which I have not been able to check as can't find this book online).

Woodlesford, and Thomas de Bellomonte

John de Wridlesford (?the name is from Woodlesford between Leeds and Pontefract) witnesses both charter no. 3 and no.4, and I have other references to him.

Perhaps in his old age John seems to have given a charter giving his body to Kirkstall Abbey, and this was witnessed by a certain Thomas, described as the heir of William de Bellomonte (Kirkstall Coucher Book, Thoresby Society vol.8, 1904, pp. 281-2). 

John of Wridlesford had property at Fixby near Huddersfield which he granted to Michael of Briestwistle (the name of a place which is, or is near, Lower Whitley) in marriage with his sister (Dodsworth MS 155 fo.156). Impliedly that property was later owned by the Beaumonts. Michael was another witness to the Kirkstall charter just mentioned.

Unique references?

These mentions of Hugh and Thomas may be unique. Certainly I don't think they are mentioned in any of the other notes I have. 

Support for theory?

The name Thomas has been used in the family again and again, and I am tempted to think this little bit of information lends support to my theory that William, the man we think of as the first Yorkshire Beaumont, came from the family holding lands at Pyrton, Oxfordshire and Staining, Lancashire (as in my piece on 27 February 2021). 

But one new piece of evidence can change everything!

EMB 18 July 2021

The first Whitley Charters (2) - the texts

Following on from the previous.

Here is all I know of the text of the two main charters. I have made translations into English based on R.H. Beaumont's summary, which is entirely consistent with Dodsworth's summaries. (*1) 

The main charter (no. 3) (DD/WBD/IX/1)

Know present and future that I John de Laci earl of Lincoln and Constable of Chester grant & by this my present charter confirm to John Mouncebot and his heirs or to an assignee namely William de Bellomonte, if the same wishes to assign to him, and to his heirs, all the land that I have purchased [or which I had, which I obtained etc] from Thomas de Dranffeld in the vill of Witteley with the capital messuage and all liberties and easements in the vill or outside it and with all appurtenant services, rents, wardships, escheats and reliefs of freemen and rustics belonging to the said land …. to have and to hold to him and his heirs, or his assignee namely the aforesaid William de Bellomonte, from me and my heirs in perpetuity. Rendering therefor annually to me and my heirs two white gloves at Easter. And know that the said John and his heirs acquit me and my heirs versus the heirs of Peter de Birkethwate (*2) 10 shillings each year at the feast of Saint Martin, and versus William de Draneffeld and his heirs of a pound of cumin at the same season, and that the said John does the forinsec service as much as pertains to the said land to me and my heirs..... and I will warrant title to the said John Muntebot and his heirs and assigns and their heirs. In witness whereof my seal is hereby affixed…. Witnesses lord Adam de Neirford (*2), lord Robert de Stapilton, lord Richard Grammatico, lord William de Swillington (*2), lord Adam de Preston, John de Wridelsford (*4). Not dated but must be 1232 x 1240.

(*1  In the case of no.3 only also consistent with a summary understood to be based on information given to Sir William Dugdale in the 1660s, and the West Yorkshire Archives catalogue).

From Surtees Society Vol. xxxvi for 1859 (Dugdale's
Visitation of the County of York, 1665-1666, page 254

(*2 not Birpheit, Hairford, Sumlington as in the West Yorks Archive Catalogue. I have a number of other references to Adam of Narford between about 1220 and 1250, including one as the Earl's steward. Sometimes his name is mis-read as Hartford or similar)

The final charter (no. 4)

Know present and future that I John Mucenbote constitute William de Beumunt as my heir for my land of Witelei with all all appurtenances as the charter of the lord Earl testifies if I die without an heir of my body by a wife (*3). Witnesses John de Wridelesford (*4). R de Bestun (*5),  R de Lasie(?),  Alan de Wirkelei “and others”…. No date ….

I don't of course know if this William de Beaumont is the one who appears from the 1190s in the circle of Earl John de Lacy's father. It is quite possible, but he would be about 60 years old or more. 

(*3   si devixero sine herede de corpore meo de sponsa. Rendered by RHB as si devixero sine herede de corpores de Sponsa, and in G.W. Tomlinson's note (YAJ 8 502) as if he died without an heir of his body by his wife.  The unusual word "devixero" seems to connote a future end of life, and that is clearly what others have taken it to mean).

(*4 I have several references to John of Wridlesford from about 1230 to 1250).

(*5 There are several connections between people called Beston or Beeston with the early Beaumonts, including rather interestingly that a William de Beston's coat of arms appears in Galloways Roll next to that of William Beaumont, hinting that they were comrades-in-arms in the military operations in southern Scotland in 1300).

Source material for the above translations is

For both documents

- RHB's 1796 Family Tree (Box 1-157 in this Archive)

- Text[s] either written by Roger Dodsworth in August 1629 when he visited Whitley Hall then the home of Sir Richard Beaumont (the well known character we know as Black Dick), and/or at a different date when he visited the house of Richard Beaumont Esq (Castle Hall, Mirfield), or copied by Dodsworth or others from such notes.... (Bodleian Library Dodsworth MS 133 fo.114v and fo.122, and Dodsworth MS 155 fo.151v).  

And also for charter no. 3

- Surtees Society Vol. xxxvi for 1859 (Dugdale's Visitation of the County of York, 1665-1666), pp.253-254. It was on 2nd April 1666 at Halifax that certain aspects of the pedigree of Beaumont of Whitley were presented to William Dugdale, and since this charter is printed where it is, I have assumed that it was part of such information.

- the online catalogue of West Yorkshire Archives.

EMB 18 July 2021

The first Whitley Charters (1) - Introduction

This is the first of perhaps several notes replacing two articles I put up in December 2020 and deleted today.

They needed to be completely re-written in the light of some of the information in the Dodsworth Manuscripts, that is Bodleian Library Dodsworth MS 133 and MS 155, copies of a lot of which that Library kindly sent me not long ago.

Not that what I put before was wrong, if you have read it. But that with the aid of the Dodsworth transcripts I am a lot closer to the original situation and would like to focus on what Dodsworth and also R H Beaumont wrote, on the basis that both of them actually saw the original deeds and that RHB had also seen Dodsworth's transcripts, copies of which I have also now been fortunate enough to see.

RHB's notes of this, here from his 1796 Family Tree (Box 1-157 in this Archive), are extremely accurate when compared to what is in the Dodsworth MSS

The story goes that between 1232 and 1240 (**) a person called John Muncebot obtained a grant of Whitley and assigned it over to William de Beaumont. But in some published books - and inevitably copied on various websites - John's name is Montbegon. 

** It is useful to keep in mind that the date has to be between about 1232, when John de Lacy became Earl of Lincoln, and 1240 when he died. In the published catalogue charter no 3 below (DD/WBD/IX/1) is dated "twelfth century" in error.

Ideally I should have gone to Wakefield and look at the original charter in West Yorkshire Archives (DD/WBD/IX/1), the primary source of the story. 

However, in the online catalogue, the name is Muncebot. Similarly in other reliable copies, the earliest known being that done in 1629 by Roger Dodsworth, who gives the name in different spellings such as Mouncebot, Montebot, and Mucenbote. We also have it in the handwriting of R.H. Beaumont, the Antiquary, writing in 1796, a man who must have seen not only the original but also Dodsworth's copies. 

The story is told in four charters.

1. A transfer by William de Dranfeld to his brother Thomas, of his interest in Whitley. The original charter is DD/WBD/IX/2.  Copies by Dodsworth at MS 133 fo. 117v and 155 fo. 153.

2. Sale by this Thomas to the lord, John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln and Constable of Chester. The original is DD/WBD/IX/3. Copies by Dodsworth at MS 133 fo.121/121v and 155 fo. 151v.

3. The grant by the Earl to the mysterious John, with authority to make it over to an assignee, specifically to William de Beaumont, if he so wished. The original charter is DD/WBD/IX/1. Copies by Dodsworth at MS 133 fo.114v and MS 155 fo. 151v, the witnesses being the same as to No.2, suggesting done on same occasion. Summary in a mixture of English and Latin also by R H Beaumont in the 1796 family tree (above). The variations to the name appear to be Muncebote, Mouncebot, Montebot.

4. A grant by the mysterious John expressly making William de Bellomonte his heir if he should have no heir by his wife.  Copies by Dodsworth at MS 133 fo.122 and MS 155 fo. 151v. In this case the original charter seems not to be in the WYAS catalogue, suggesting that it has either not survived to the present day, or perhaps that it is written or endorsed on another document. The witnesses include one person in common with the previous. RHB knew about this document, as he quoted its unusual wording:-

si devixero sine herede de corpores de Sponsa (top of image above)

We can see that the name is NOT Montbegon in the Dodsworth transcripts, nor in R H Beaumont's notes, nor in the modern catalogue record. Later I might look at some other copies or transcripts, which I think are all derived from one of the above, and consider who first suggested Montbegon and why, and whether there was ever a John de Montbegon or a John Muncebote.

I'd also like to say some things about the (feudal) service by which this property was held, and maybe whether it is safe to assume that it is the very place where Whitley Hall was to be built. 

EMB 15 July 2021

An early Beaumont gift to Montebourg abbey

In a piece on 10 March 2021 I introduced William "the Monk," who was the maternal uncle of several twelfth century men called Beaumont.  More recently I have done pieces about him and these 12th, and 13th, century Beaumonts who were benefactors to Montebourg abbey.

In this piece we go back further, perhaps to the late 11th century.

Gift of share in mill of "Aldubvilla"

A certain William de Bello monte gave the abbey a share of a mill at a place called "Aldulvilla" or "Aldubvilla." 

.........Et dimidiu' molendini de aldul-villa qd dedit Will de bello mo'te pdce abbattie 

... and a half share in the mill of Audouville given by William de Bello monte to the aforesaid abbey

The charter and the timing of the gift

There is no known surviving record of the charter making this gift, assuming there was ever such a charter. The gift is mentioned in a confirmation charter apparently dating from 1107.

That charter is no. 141 in the Montebourg cartulary, BN Fr Lat 10087. The text of it is also available in print in various places, including Gallia Christiana Volume xi, Instrumenta, cols 232-3;  Bearman's Redvers Charters at pp.57-9; and Stapleton's House of Vernon pp.88-90.

It is a charter of Richard de Redvers or Reviers, and King Henry I was a witness. It looks like a document combining several others. Some of the gifts confirmed are referred to as gifts in the time of William the Conqueror, who had died in 1087. I do not find it clear whether William de Beaumont's gift is one of those, as seems to be suggested by van Torhoudt (reference below). I see that as depending on the general authenticity of the copy document as transcribed into the cartulary and whether a sentence "haec omnia dedit primus rex Willielmus" (King William I gives all these) refers to the items listed before or after those words.

So I can do no better than say that the gift by William de Beaumont can have been no later than 1107. It seems to me that the gift must have come out of lands Richard de Reviers controlled by then, but that it is not necessary to assume that he controlled them at the time of William's gift. Richard de Reviers had supported Henry I (Henri Beauclerc) in the Cotentin before he became king of England, and had been extensively rewarded.

The location of this mill

Saint-Martin - d'Audouville, near Lestre. This is the location suggested by Thomas Stapleton in his "House of Vernon," p.83.  I agree. It is on a stream and there was certainly a mill at later dates. It is only about 5 kms from Montebourg. 

In his book on the Redvers Charters at page 57, Robert Bearman identified this Aldubvilla as “probably Audeville-la-Hubert” but with respect, I think that was a mistake in two respects-

a. I think he meant Audouville-la-Hubert, about 16 kms from Montebourg.

b. that is the identification of a place (Aldulfivilla) the church of which was initially given in the early eleventh century to Robert the elder brother of Roger of Beaumont-le-Roger (ancestor of earls of Leicester etc), and after Robert's death to Saint-Wandrille abbey (Scripta Database no.1572).

The donor

I have not seen any connection to the Beaumont-le-Roger people.

Thomas Stapleton suggested someone from Beaumont-le-Richard. I have not seen this connection either.

Wouldn't it seem plausible to speculate that the donor of this mill was somehow connected to those Beaumonts a generation or two later who were related to William the monk, and who are known to have been benefactors to Montebourg, giving property etc not many miles away?

(Incidentally, amongst the witnesses to the 1107 charter was Richard de Ansgerville*, identified elsewhere as William the Monk's father. * "Angervill" very clear in Cartulary. Blank in Gallia Christiana copy.)

Against this theory - so far I have seen no further confirmations eg by the later Beaumonts mentioning this mill at Audouville. Had the abbey known it was their ancestor who gave it, perhaps they would have asked them to confirm that.

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

A very useful source for anything to do with the early history of Montebourg, is the article by Eric van Torhoudt on what he calls the Enigma of the origins of Montebourg Abbey, published in 2009 in Cahier des Annales de Normandie and available online at Persee. 

At p.332 Eric van Torhoudt refers to "trois notices attribuées à Guillaume de Beaumont, Guillaume de Tancarville et Gautier Broc confirmées par le roi Guillaume Ier." What Walter Broc gave was at Gatteville on the NE point of the Cotentin, adacent to William the monk's Néville-sur-mer. It strikes me that the other donor, referred to as William Camerarius in the actual text, might not be the well-known chamberlain of Tancarville. His gift was at "Waldinvill" (perhaps Vauville, Cotentin, I am not at all sure).

A charter of Richard de Ansgervill is set out in the cartulary as no. 140, i.e. immediately before the one under discussion, but it does not mention Audouville.

EMB 13 May 2021

13th century Beaumonts in the Montebourg cartulary

In a piece on 10 March 2021 I said some stuff about this family in the c12, so this follows on.

Naming patterns and some other circumstantial evidence suggests that a Cotentin-connected Beaumont extended family had activities and properties on both sides of the English channel throughout the twelfth century. The Loss of Normandy in 1204 split some families of course and I think this was one such.

A notable event in this family was the gift of property at Néville-sur-mer to make a sub-priory of Montebourg abbey. This is known to have happened, or to have started, in the year 1163.

The principal donor then was "William the monk," whose gifts were confirmed or consented to by his nephew Thomas de Beaumont, as shown in copy charters in the Montebourg cartulary.

Thomas in fact was one of four brothers, the others being called Philip, Juhel, and Godfrey.

Earlier this year I obtained a complete copy of the Montebourg cartulary (MS Lat 10087) from the Gallica website of the Bibliotheque Nationale de France (warm thanks to them). It is a pdf file consisting of about 180 images where each image shows a left and a right page (copying a book, in fact). 

It is of course a manuscript record, not all in the same handwriting, and I must confess I cannot read all of it. Of course, it is nearly all in latin, with words severely abbreviated, a real test to my "O level" latin skills. Pages and individual items - eg transcripts or summaries of the (presumably now lost) original charters - are numbered with reasonable consistency.

Items 422 ff, on page 139 ff, on image 75 ff, are a long series of copy documents stating the original gifts by William the monk, and confirmations by various Beaumonts - Thomas, Philip, Peter, William, and Robert.

(Number 45 on page 27-28 / image 19 is a copy charter of Richard bishop of Coutances, in which the original gift by William the Monk is confirmed, and I think it is from this act that the date of this, 1163, is known)

No 453 on page 144, on Image 78, sets out a charter of a Ric[hard] de Bellomonte, knight ("miles") describing him as lord of Néville [-sur-mer] and dated August 1281.

Nos 462 and 463 on page 147 (image 79) are two charters of a Juhel de Bellomonte, also stated to be a knight ("miles") of which one has a Philip de Bellomonte for a witness, and the other is dated 1269.

At about page 250 (image 133) the system changes, and the continuation of the cartulary appears to be a place-by-place review of where the abbey owned property. Thus on page 278ff (image 146ff) we are again given details of the charters relating to Néville-sur-mer, these to some extent repeating information already given, and making clear that the places in respect of which the Beaumonts were confirming gifts to the abbey included several other settlements in the NE part of the Cotentin such as Cosqueville and Varouville.

No family tree can be attempted but clearly the twelfth century family continued for several generations as shown by these charters. Other evidence exists too, of which I just mention a couple of things;-

In 1247 both a Williermo de Bellomonte and an Icello (given as Juhel) de Bellomonte are named in context of a local enquiry into the value of a whale which had been caught at Quettehou (near Barfleur) (Cartulaire Normand No. 465 p.77). 

A knight called Juhel was lord of Beaumont-Hague in the NW part of the Cotentin in the time of St.Louis (Mem.Soc. Nat. Academ. Cherbourg 1879 p.120)....It means Louis IX whose reign was 1226-1270.

Several Beaumonts - Ricardus, Juhellus, Johanna, Philippus, Guillelmus, Petrus, another Petrus, and Thomas - were remembered by Montebourg abbey with the days on which (but not the years) they died (Historiens de France, Vol. 23, pp. 553-556).

Many writers including the nineteenth century Saint-Pierre-Eglise historian Louis Drouet have noted that this Beaumont family came to an end by about 1330 with an heiress - called Thomasse - who married Raoul de Argouges.

EMB 12 May 2021

The Beaumonts of Devon 1198-1294 (and a bit on Dorsington)

.........Continued

 Richard de Bellomonte, 1198

Again there may be two of the name. In a Devon context, Richard began disputes with his brother Thomas' widow Rose in about 1198.  Rose remarried, to a certain Simon Buzun. In fact, before Thomas, she had been the wife of a Stephen Flameng. The source for these facts is mainly the Curia Regis Rolls, and Pipe Rolls, volumes which I saw years ago in Southampton University Library (my thanks to them!) many of which don't seem to be available online, making it hard to check references.

When Normandy was lost in 1204, families which had been able to operate both sides of the English Channel, had to choose one side or the other, or divide their family. So this may be the Richard de Bellomonte whose former land in Hague (NW part of Cotentin) was regranted by king Philip-Augustus in 1207 (Cartulaire Normand, ed. L. Delisle, no. 161 p.26 and p.292 - printed in Mem. Soc. Antiquaires Normandie, volume 16 (1852). References in the Pipe Rolls to Richard again in a Devon context make me think that this is a man who would have lost any lands that he had south of the channel. 

But since a family called Beaumont continued in the Cotentin long after 1204 I suppose they are different people (though likely to be related to one another).

A Richard de Bellomonte occurs at Fareham (Hampshire) in 1208, mentioned in the Bishop of Winchester's Pipe Roll. I would guess-identify this as Richard Beaumont of Devon and/or of the Cotentin.

There are a number of references to Richard and this Devon family in the early c13 in context of litigation such as dower claims.

Richard would seem to have died by about 1221 leaving a son called Philip and a widow named Alice, who was not Philip's mother.

Philip de Bellomonte, 1220

The son of Richard, and nephew of Thomas.

From Bracton's Note Book 2 pp.160-1 (dated 1222):-

....... manerio de Cuntebiria unde dicit quod de secta ilia fuit Thomas de Bello Monte seisitus avunculus suus [of Philip is meant] ut de feodo et iure tempore Ricardi Regis etc. et de ipso Thoma descendit secta ilia Ricardo fratri suo eo quod Thomas obiit sine herede de se ita quod Roeisia uxor eiusdem Thome tenuit hundredum illud cum secta ilia predicta tota uita sua nomine dotis toto tempore Johannis Regis et descendit ius illius secte eidem Philippo ut filio et heredi suo 

 .... manor of Countisbury [in the hundred of Shirwell] of which he said his uncle Thomas de Beaumont was seised in the time of king Richard [1189-1199], and that from the said Thomas the suit descended to Richard his brother since Thomas had no heirs of his [body] [and that] Rose the wife of the said Thomas held the hundred with the suit all her life all the time of king John [1199-1216] and thus the suit descended to the said Philip as son and heir

In the Curia Regis Rolls there are numerous reports of Philip and other Beaumonts who may be his relatives. Philip litigated with his stepmother, Alice. Bracton’s Notebook no.977 vol.3 p.27) [my very loose translation]:- Philip recovers Shirwell because his father Richard never held it (because Rose had it), and thus Alice's claim to have it in dower should fail.

The names of the family members in the records of the litigation seem to show that this Philip is not the same as the contemporary namesake at Pirton, Oxfordshire. Nevertheless I see them as likely to be related somehow. It seems that the author[s] of Victoria County History (Oxfordshire) (Volume 8 pp.138-178; see the text of footnote 198 there) assumed there was but one Philip, in Oxfordshire and Devon, and I must respectfully disagree.

Philip (of Devon) had a tenant called William de Bellomonte, whose father's name was Joel. Timing seems too long for that to have been the Joel mentioned in the previous piece.

In 1229 Philip appears to have been sent overseas in the royal service. The name appears twice on a list of such men issued at Portsmouth (Patent Rolls 1225-1232 p.311).  This is consistent with there being two of them, Devon and Pirton!

Nothing is known of Philip's marriage etc but the Devon family continued.

Dorsington

A complication exists in that there were people called Beaumont at Dorsington (between Stratford on Avon and Evesham).  One representative of that family in King John's reign was also called Philip, so there were in fact three of them!

They were not all exact contemporaries but I'm reminded how Winnie the Pooh counted Woozles - each time he walked around the tree, he was following one more set of footprints than before! 

14 May 2021. I am removing most of the rest of this Dorsington section from here as I plan to write a piece especially on the Dorsington people.

In terms of chronology, Philip of Dorsington could, I think, be a younger brother either of (a) Thomas and Richard, of Devon, or (b) Thomas of Pyrton (for whom, see my 27 February 2021 contribution).

Back to Devon.

Philip de Bellomonte, 1238

Possibly the same as the previous (Devon) Philip. When asked - in 1238 - to show by what warrant he held the hundred of Shirwell, Philippus de Beumond said quod nullum alium warantum habet nisi ex antiquum tenura et ex questu regi... (Book of Fees p.1369) ... he says he has no warrant except ancient tenure from the conquest of the kingdom. In other words he had no actual charters or title deeds to prove his ownership. 

Meantime some of what he held appears to have transferred from the Okehampton to the Plympton honour.

In 1242 Philip de Bellomonte was one of four local worthies who were mandated to deal, at their own expense, with problems caused by the “king’s enemies” on Lundy island (Cal.Pat.R. Henry 3 vol. 3 p. 292). 

There are further references to Philip down to about the 1260s, when it would appear that he must have died.

At this sort of date E.T. Beaumont's account in "The Beaumonts in History" starts to become useful (from page 61), but treat with care!.

Richard de Beaumont, from the 1270s to 1294

There are several primary references to Richard (assumed to be Philip's son, evidence being somewhat uncertain, except for tenure of Sherwell).

In 1284-1285 Ricardus Beaumund held two fees in Shirwell of Hugh de Courtenay [i.e. of Okehampton] and one fee also in Shirwell of Isabella de Fortibus countess of Aumale [that means, of the Plympton honour] (Feudal Aids 1 p.335)..... a further half fee held by Richard of the Okehampton honour in Brittecote and Smythepath was held from Richard by Hugh le Pigh (Feudal Aids 1 p.337).

The IPM taken on 23 January 22 Edward I (1294) shows that Richard was holding "Schirewill" for three fees viz two fees held of the heir of Hugh de Courtenay (i.e the Okehampton honour) and one from the countess Isabella (i.e. the Plympton honour), and "Esford" for a further fee from Okehampton and likewise "Langcars" for a further fee.. Richard had died on Tuesday the eve of Epiphany .. his heir was his son Philip, aged 22 years (Cal. IPM 3 no.187, p.111). The origins and background of the Plympton fee are not understood but the total of four fees held from Okehampton tallies with the information above.

I leave this account here, as the fourteenth century is not my baby.

Further on

"The Beaumonts" are supposed to have owned the estate of Youlston, near Shirwell, Barnstaple, from the reign of Henry II [earlier I would say] until [sometime when] a Beaumont heiress married a Chichester, ancestor of Francis, the round the world aviator and yachtsman (according to Western Morning News, 25 March 1987). 

The Youlston estate was offered for sale in 1993 for £700,000 when it was said to comprise a manor house and 165 acres of parkland. I got the selling agents to send me the sale particulars at the time. 

But I didn't buy it!

The "Listing Particulars" of this old house on the Historic England website today fall into the trap of saying that the early c12 holder was "Roceline de Beaumont" and that he had his chief dwelling there. That is the old red herring which I covered in my piece about South Tawton on February 1, 2021.

EMB 3 May 2021

The Beaumonts of Devon 1086-1198

Robert de Bellomonte, 1086

The Devon Beaumont family presumably descended from the Robert who is shown in Domesday Book as a tenant at Shirwell and elsewhere in Devon as a tenant of Baldwin the sheriff, lord of Okehampton. The "Exon" Domesday Book supplies Robert's family name, Bello monte, whilst the Exchequer DB, calling him plain Robert, adds that he had a couple of houses in Barnstaple.

Baldwin the sheriff (of Devon) means Baldwin son of count Gilbert of Brionne. Count Gilbert was killed in some troubles in 1040 and I believe Baldwin was brought up in Flanders. His mother, I believe, was a relation of the Count of Flanders and thus closely related both to William the Conqueror's wife and to the wife of king Harold's brother Tostig Godwinson. 

There is reason for supposing that Baldwin's own wife was a sister of Guy of Burgundy (who had been banished from Normandy), and that through her right - perhaps more strictly through that lady's mother, countess Adelisa, a member of the Norman ducal family, Baldwin controlled the old castle of Hulmus (now called Isle-Marie) in the Cotentin marshes. 

I hasten to say that Baldwin had other interests and lands as well, but there is considerable evidence that his followers into Devon did include men from the Cotentin, these including a man called Rogo son of Nigel, four of whose grandchildren were called Beaumont if the suggested chart in my 10 March 2021 piece is correct.

Keats-Rohan (Domesday People p.374) stated that Robert was from Beaumont-Hague, but I ask that consideration be given to the place called Beaumont which is between Cosqueville and Hacouville in the NE part of the Cotentin (see 10 March article), Robert was perhaps a younger son in the family there who might have had no lands had he stayed at home.

From Robert no family tree as such can be constructed but Thomas de Bellomonte mentioned in 1166, was his successor both in place and in feudal tenure.

Thomas de Bellomonte, 1166

In the returns of 1166 Thomas de Bellomonte is shown holding four knights fees of the then lord of Okehampton (Baldwin's successor, Robert, a son of king Henry) (Red Book of the Exchequer p.252). Thomas's lands included Shirwell. Four knights fees means he was a person of some power and influence locally. 

He is perhaps the Thomas de Beaumont who had three brothers - Philip, Juhel, and Godfrey, who I have mentioned in earlier notes (see 10 March 2021). These were nephews of William "the Monk."

Also this Thomas might well be the one who with his wife Adeliza has been mentioned in another earlier piece (30 January 2021) as witnessing a charter of Oliver de Tracy.  Oliver was involved with the Barnstaple honour, so the fact that Robert de Beaumont (above) had had houses in that town is perhaps significant. Shirwell is much nearer to Barnstaple than it is to Okehampton.

I think we have two contemporary men of the same name. One of these Thomases was at some stage the heir of his uncle William the Monk (see my piece of 10 March 2021) to property in Normandy and also in England but I think that is a different Thomas from the holder at Shirwell. [4 Nov.2021: this is to be revised. They may well be one and the same. There will be a later article]

Thomas de Bellomonte (the Devon one, I guess) attested a charter or agreement done in London at the house of the bishop-elect of Winchester in about 1173 (English Episcopal Acta Vol. 8 no.139). The bishop-elect (Richard of Ilchester) was a man with West Country connections.

Thomas is also mentioned in the Pipe Rolls in the 1170s, in a Devon context.

He may or may not be the Thomas de Bellomonte who was an official in the Cotentin in the time of kings Richard and John (until 1204). I think that is not the Devon man.

I think the Devon Thomas or a successor of the same name lived until 1198 when his heir was his brother, called Richard. In 1198, in a case referenced to Devon, a day was given to Richard de Bellomonte and Rohahisie de Bellomonte in regard to her dower claim (Curia Regis Rolls 7 p.342; in the appendix dealing with the time of Richard I). Later evidence shows that Rose was Thomas' widow and that Richard was his brother. I will come to them in a later piece.

Joel de Bellomonte, 1162

This was the name of one of the brothers of the Cotentin Thomas. It is quite an unusual name. A Joel de Bellomonte was third lay witness to a charter, in favour of St.Nicholas, Exeter, given by Robert son of King Henry with the consent of his wife Matilda de Abrinco [Avranches] in 1162 (Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, vol.1 (1834), p.382) (Domesday Descendants p.317). Matilda was the heiress of the Okehampton barony. This attestation somewhat implies Joel being the then tenant of the barony, in which case given the date, he looks like being the predecessor of Thomas of 1166. But the evidence of legal proceedings in the 1220s (this is for a subsequent article) leaves this is as very unclear.

Other comments

The account in E.T. Beaumont, The Beaumonts in History (pages 56-61), of Devon Beaumonts at the period I have covered in this article and a bit later, is all wrong! 

Part of the problem is the muddle about South Tawton (see my piece of 1 February 2021 about that).

Unfortunately ETB has been widely copied. To some extent his work was based on that of old Devon historians and antiquaries, and ETB himself should be blamed less than those more recently who have copied him indiscriminately.

EMB 

2 May 2021

Samuel Peacham's red herring about the ancestry of Nigel Constable of Chester

1622 on. Samuel Peacham, The Compleat Gentleman 

This book was mainly about heraldry, not history. The passage quoted comes where Peacham is talking about a different family entirely, that of Constable of Flamborough, who might be descended from one of the Constables of Chester. It was a passing remark, not something to have ever been taken as a source.

These words introduce the digression -

Here I cannot pafse, (having occafion) but give a little touch of the Antiquity of this family of Conftable

and then a passage containing this -

The said Nigell was sonne of Iuon, Viscount Constantine in Normandy, by Emma, sister to Adam, Earle of Britaine…..

(The words are near-identical in:- 1622 edition (Michigan University); 1627 Edition (Herzog August Bibliothek); 1634 edition, also 1906 Oxford edition; 1661 edition as cited below - different page numbers in different editions. I haven't seen facsimiles of most of the editions).

1673. Sir Peter Leycester, Historical Antiquities (1673) p. 263

This Nigell, if we may believe Pecham in his Compleat Gentleman, pag. 189. was the Son of Ivo (Vice-Comes or Governor of Constantia in Normandy) by Emme Sister to Adam Earl of Bretagne: Sed quaere

I think "If we may believe..." means "this is not credible." It is rather like "with great respect to my learned friend......" "Sed quaere" (But query it) reinforces that.

And that, 350-odd years ago, should have been good enough, really. However:-

1741. Thomas Wotton, English Baronetage

The said Nigell was son of Ivon, Viscount Constantine, in Normandy, by Emma, sister to Adam Earl of Britain ........ 

1807. John T Smith, Antiquities of Westminster p.248, citing Peacham 1661 edn p.227

Nigell was, he says, "son of Ivon, Viscount Constantine, in Normandy, by Emma, sister to Adam Earl of Britain ........ "

1819 on. Ormerod, The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester

1819 edition, vol. 1 p.507 (George Ormerod himself)

This Nigell, if we may believe Pecham in his Compleat Gentleman, pag. 189, was the son of Ivo (vicecomes or governor of Constantia in Normandy) by Emme, sister to Adam earl of Bretagne. Sed quaere.

Directly taken from Leycester.

Second edition, 1882 (ed. Helsby), vol. 1 p.690

This Nigell, if we may believe Pecham in his Compleat Gentleman, pag. 189, was the son of Ivo (vicecomes or governor of Constantia in Normandy) by Emme, sister to [Alan, not] Adam earl of Bretagne. Sed quaere.

There are lengthy speculative footnotes by Helsby on pp.689-690 about some of the various Cotentin Nigels and the various stories about them. Nothing, of course, abut Yvo.

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

1836. Burke, History of the Commoners, an edition of 1836 Vol. 1 p.548

Nigell, son of Ivon, Viscount Constantine, in Normandy, by Emma, sister to Adam, Earl of Bretagne...

1847. Lipscombe, History & Antiquities of the County of Buckingham vol. 4 p.529n

Ivo was Governor of Constantia, in Normanby [sic]: he married Eme [sic], sister of Adam Earl of Bretagne......

Quaere, Query

Sir Peter Leycester didn't believe it! George Ormerod let it stand with the the query. Helsby got so far as saying that there was an Alan count of Brittany (there was no such Adam). Everybody else just swallowed it. 

And that should surely be enough!

To quote an excellent historian of Cheshire:- 

It was not until the sixteenth century that unscrupulous heralds linked him [Nigel] up with the vicomtes of the Cotentin whose seat was at Saint-Sauveur near Valognes. This affiliation seems first to appear in print in Henry Peacham’s The Complete Gentleman......

(James Tait, The Foundation Charter of Runcorn (Later Norton) Priory, page 5, in Chetham Society vol. 100 (New Series), 1939).

But now, the internet......

As Peacham would say, Here I cannot pafse, (having occafion), but mention this as a current and perhaps the reddest version of the red herring:-

Yvo Bellomontensis and Emme Bretagne de St. Sauveur .....  the parents of the first Constable of Chester … 

Does this reveal honest confusion with one of the Counts Ivo de Beaumont, of Beaumont-sur-Oise? Or is this is just a case of cutting and pasting by the new genealogists? The problem is, as with "the Oaks" that I have written about before, that red herrings get a life of their own.  I say don't just comment on what was published recently, tying yourself in knots in your attempts to put it right, but if necessary ignore it and get back to basics.

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

Lastly I wonder if James Tait fell a little into the trap of concluding that Nigel was not from the Cotentin. I think so, as he had another theory (op. cit pp. 6-7), which should be considered carefully. However the mere fact that Peacham's theory linking Nigel to the Cotentin was corrupt does not prove anything as to what Nigel's background was, or was not. 

My personal approach would be to focus (a) on the man Nigel presumably came to England to serve under, namely Hugh of Avranches, known as Hugh the Wolf ("Lupus,") earl of Chester from about 1070-1101, (b) on other known followers of earl Hugh (cutting through more corrupt genealogy would be needed there, I fear), and (c) on naming patterns - which would involve looking for anyone else who, or whose father, was called Nigel, or people whose "toponymic" (place-related) surnames connect to places of interest in the search. 

There are plenty of Cotentin Nigels to look at, other than the lords of Saint-Sauveur. I would be interested in these and some others -

 

- Nigel son of Humphrey de Haga, mentioned in a charter of vicomte Nigel (Delisle, Preuves, no.31),

- Nigel the father of the Rogo who obtained lands in Devon (Domesday People p.413),

- Nigel, son of Constantine who had lands at Sainteny near Carentan, and who (Nigel that is) went to Apulia (Caen SCRIPTA no. 1666), 

- or even the slightly later Nigel of Stafford (Domesday People p.302).

EMB 20 March 2021