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