From: celticprince51@gmail.com

Dear Andrew ~

You've correctly analyzed the problem with the various lineages which have = been set forth for Isabel de Gressenhall. Myself I believe I originally re= lied on Brown, whose work I consulted many years ago.

I just checked Rye, Norfolk Families 1 (1911): 386=E2=80=93387, which work =
I also consulted many years ago. I see he identifies Isabel, wife of Will= iam de Huntingfield, as the "d[aughter] of Henry de Gressenhall." So we ha=
ve yet another proposed parentage for Isabel de Gressenhall.

Here is the evidence Rye cites to document Isabel's parentage: Nothing.

Rye may be consulted at the following weblink:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid
IE4043048

Having reviewed the evidence anew this week, I don't think it is as cut as = dried as citing Brown, Farrer, Keats-Rohan, Rye, or Blomefield, as good as = all of them are. All five of them were working from a lack of evidence whi=
ch invariably create problems for us historians. As I've noted, there is a=
n obvious chronological problem with the Keats-Rohan version.

Is there any available record which might indicate Isabel de Gressenhall's = immediate ancestry? Actually yes there is.

In 1195 the Abbot of St. Edmunds granted William de Huntingfield and Isabel=
his wife and her heirs the whole vill of Wendling, Norfolk in return for a=
rent of 50s. a year.

References:

1. Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservatorum Abbrevatio = (1811): 3, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id
umn.31951002064556u;view
1up;seq=

31

2. Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 10 (1807): 87=E2=80= =9391 quotes the actual fine involved in this transaction:

"In the sixth year of Richard I. a fine was levied on the day after St. Alp= hege's, before Hubert Walter Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Nigel Bishop=
of London, Gilbert Glanvile Bishop of Rochester, Herbert, son of Hervey, W= illiam de Warren, Richard de Wiat, and Thomas de Husseburn, the King's just= ices, between William de Huntingfeld and Isabel his wife, and the abbot of = Bury, whereby Will. and Isabella quitclaimed all their right in this town, = and advowson of the church, to the abbot, on which the abbot conveyed to hi=
m and his wife, and their heirs, the whole township of Wendling, to be held=
of the said abbot and his successours, by the service and payment of 60s r= ent per ann. and they were to hold the men and tenants of the town, by the = same services and customs which they performed to the abbot's predecessors,=
before William, son of Roger de Gressinghale, held the same." END OF QUOT=
E.

Blomefield cites the following source for the above fine: Regist. Bury, Pin= cebek, fol. 186. The fine states the rent involved with the transaction wa=
s 60s. but I have seen it stated elsewhere (perhaps by Brown) that the rent=
was 50s.

Although Wendling is located in Norfolk, for some reason, the above fine is=
not included in Rye, Short Calendar of Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885).

Be that as it may, the fine implies that "William, son of Roger de Gressing= hale" was the predecessor to Isabel de Gressenhall. I assume it is for thi=
s reason that Blomefield states in his Wendling account that Isabel de Gres= senhall was the "daughter and sole heir of William de Gressinghale, lord of=
Gressinghale."

It may be that Blomefield jumped to a faulty conclusion. The best interpre= tation one can make of the fine and other evidence is that Isabel was the d= escendant and heiress of William son of Roger de Gressenhall. She was not = necessarily his daughter. I can live with that interpretation.

While the fine isn't as exact as one would like, it is still a helpful reco=
rd in identifying Isabel de Gressenhall's forebearer.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)

From: taf <taf.medieval@gmail.com>

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 4:00:34 PM UTC-7, johnschm...@gmail.com wr= ote:

You see Richardson's "certification" of his broken Cudworth lineage as "humbuggery."

Just for the record, I did not specifically address my comment toward anyon=
e in particular. Any certification is humbuggery. 'This is correct becaus=
e I say it correct' is not just simple appeal to authority, it is appeal to=
_my_ authority. I can just see how this is supposed to play out in the mi= nds of people who do this:

Proponent: Here is the evidence and this is my conclusion.

Respondent: I see what you are thinking, but I just don't view the evidence=
as sufficient to draw your conclusion to the exclusion of possible alterna= tives.

Proponent: Well then I _certify_ it.

Respondent: Gasp! That changes everything. Now that you have certified it=
, the same evidence that was previously insufficient can only be viewed as = overwhelming. I bow to your persuasive power. I don't know how I ever coul=
d have let something as insignificant as evidence stand in the way of recog= nizing your enormous greatness in all things.

Yeah, that isn't the likely outcome. More like:

Proponent: Well then I _certify_ it.

Respondent: OK, then _I_ certify that the evidence is insufficient to draw = your conclusion.

Proponent: Then I double certify it.

Respondent: Then double-dog certify its insufficiency.

etc.

Certification adds nothing - indeed, it muddles things: if the same person = posts something without a certification, does that mean it isn't to be take=
n seriously, or is it so good that the compiler does not feel the need to s= tick a fancy bow on it to hide an undisclosed flaw?

taf
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)

From: Andrew Lancaster <lancaster.boon@gmail.com>

That is a good observation Douglas, so that might indeed be where Blomefiel=
d got his second William fitz Roger from, although I see nothing in that ch= arter which implies that this was not simply the first William fitz Roger (=
Wm son of Roger son of Wimer)?

Isabel was heiress to the Wimer or Gressenhall family, if we can call it on=
e of those names, but the charters show that this family had a lot of men a= ppearing in charters in the 12th century, and while we luckily have several=
mentions of relationships, we have very few that are dated.

When Osmund de Stuteville and Isabel made a charter listing a whole series =
of predecessors whose charters they wanted to reconfirm (Castle Acre chart=
er XIII Monasticon Anglicanum) they are in this sequence:

1. Wimarus senescallus de Gressinghale, [FWIW mostly the word dapifer seems=
to have been used for his position in the charters.]

2. et Rogerus filius ejus, [Charter VII is his for example, where the witne=
ss list includes Walterio fratre meo.]

3. et Walterus filius Wimari, [Presumably the one in VII, but also 2 genera= tions later in X and XII where he also has an adult son William. So he was = alive when Roger fitz William was making charters, even if older. This migh=
t be another indication that the period when the first William and second R= oger were dapifers went relatively quickly. I don't see any sign that he wa=
s ever dapifer?]

4. et Wilielmus filius Rogeri,

5. et Rogerus filius Wilielmi [FWIW in charter XII he names a brother Willi= am.]

6. et Drogo frater ejus, [Charter IX is by Drogo filius Willielmi dapiferi =
de Gressinghale, who separately calls his father "Willielmus dapifer". So w=
as Drogo ever a dapifer or was he just describing himself based on his fath= er's job description? And was he definitely Roger's brother or could he hav=
e been William's?]

7. et Berengarius de Cressi

Berengar is thought to be Isabel's first husband and the list looks intende=
d to be chronological.

Best Regards
Andrew

--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)

From: Andrew Lancaster <lancaster.boon@gmail.com>

Douglas

I thought it worth checking for those Suffolk charters on Ancestry because =
as has been noted many times Ancestry.com searching sometimes seems almost = deliberately awkward. I found the pages you refer to. With scanned books I = have found that searches often fail, and browsing is awkward. If you browse=
in the Sibton charters Volume 1, the main body of that volume seems to be = called "Introduction", so you have to navigate to browse that. On page 22, = Hugh Crecy is being discussed and then it says:

"He had at least one brother, Berengar, who was presumably the younger. The=
two occur together in the Castle Acre cartulary and on occasion Berengar c= alled himself the brother of Hugh de Cressy."

Footnote (128) to this: B.L. [British Library], Harley 2110, fo. 8r and Sal= zman (ed.), The Chartulary, 60-1, as Berengar brother of Hugh de Cressy; B.= L., Harley 2110, fo. 35, the two occur together.

[continuing] "This cartulary shows that Berengar was the first husband of I= sabella de Gressenhall, Norfolk, who subsequently married first Osmund de S= tuteville and then William of Huntingfield."

Footnote (129) to this: B.L., Harley 2110, fo. 35. For an account of her fa= mily and their lands see Farrer, Honors, III. 395-7.

[continuing] "Her family made extensive grants to Castle Acre and Hugh de C= ressy confirmed the grants of Wimar the sewer, her predecessor, and Wimar's=
successors,"

Footnote (130) to this: B.L., Harley 2110, fo. 8r.

[continuing] "while Berengar on her account made the priory a grant of Weas= enham in Norfolk."

Footnote (131) to this: B.L., Harley 2110, fo. 35.

Harley NS 2110 is described here, and clearly this is referring to the Cast=
le Acre charters: https://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/recor= d.asp?MSID
3607&CollID
8&NStart
2110

Best Regards
Andrew
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)

From: Andrew Lancaster <lancaster.boon@gmail.com>

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:37:12 PM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote:

Salzman (ed.), The Chartulary, 60-1, as Berengar brother of Hugh de Cressy;

This apparently refers to an edition of The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes.



--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)

From: CE Wood <aquavistawa@gmail.com>

Thank you so much. For ease, _Monasticum Anglicanum_, Volume 5, Vol. 5: Cas= tle Acre Priory, Num, VII., p. 51, and Num, XIII., p. 52, found at https://= books.google.com/books?id
VvpAAAAAcAAJ&vq.


CE Wood


On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:01:33 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote:

That is a good observation Douglas, so that might indeed be where Blomefi=

eld got his second William fitz Roger from, although I see nothing in that = charter which implies that this was not simply the first William fitz Roger=
(Wm son of Roger son of Wimer)?

Isabel was heiress to the Wimer or Gressenhall family, if we can call it =

one of those names, but the charters show that this family had a lot of men=
appearing in charters in the 12th century, and while we luckily have sever=
al mentions of relationships, we have very few that are dated.

When Osmund de Stuteville and Isabel made a charter listing a whole serie=

s of predecessors whose charters they wanted to reconfirm (Castle Acre cha= rter XIII Monasticon Anglicanum) they are in this sequence:

1. Wimarus senescallus de Gressinghale, [FWIW mostly the word dapifer see=

ms to have been used for his position in the charters.]

2. et Rogerus filius ejus, [Charter VII is his for example, where the wit=

ness list includes Walterio fratre meo.]

3. et Walterus filius Wimari, [Presumably the one in VII, but also 2 gene=

rations later in X and XII where he also has an adult son William. So he wa=
s alive when Roger fitz William was making charters, even if older. This mi= ght be another indication that the period when the first William and second=
Roger were dapifers went relatively quickly. I don't see any sign that he = was ever dapifer?]

4. et Wilielmus filius Rogeri,

5. et Rogerus filius Wilielmi [FWIW in charter XII he names a brother Wil=

liam.]

6. et Drogo frater ejus, [Charter IX is by Drogo filius Willielmi dapifer=

i de Gressinghale, who separately calls his father "Willielmus dapifer". So=
was Drogo ever a dapifer or was he just describing himself based on his fa= ther's job description? And was he definitely Roger's brother or could he h= ave been William's?]

7. et Berengarius de Cressi

Berengar is thought to be Isabel's first husband and the list looks inten=

ded to be chronological.

Best Regards
Andrew

--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)

From: celticprince51@gmail.com

Dear Andrew and Carolyn ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

This past week I pulled up three fines involving William de Huntingfield, t=
he Magna Carta baron, and Isabel de Gressenhall his wife. One fine is date=
d 1197, the other two are dated 1198. I've listed them below with weblinks=
to the original fine.

1. Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885): 4:

68. Richard de Lechesham v. William de Huntingefeld and Isabel his wife, by=
William their attorney, in Lechesham [Lexham], Lucham [Litcham], and Quenh= ill.

National Archives, Norfolk Fine, Date: 1197 (available at http://aalt.law.u= h.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/ CP25_1_153_1-12/IMG_0073.htm).

2. Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885): 11:

247. William Battaile, and William de Huntingefeld and Ysabella his wife, =
v. William Brito, in Sueingeton [Swannington], Aldreford [Alderford], Felet= orp [Felthorpe], Attlebrige [Attlebridge], Mortun [Morton], Wichingeham [Wi= tchingham], Weston, and Taverham, and advowsons of Churches of Sweiningeton=
[Swannington], Aldreford [Alderford], and Felthorp [Felthorpe].

National Archives, Norfolk Fine, Date: 1198 (available at http://aalt.law.u= h.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/ CP25_1_153_1-12/IMG_0287.htm).

3. Rye, Short Cal. Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885): 12:

286. Michael Chevere v. William Huntingfeud and Isabel his wife, in Welling= ham.

National Archives, Norfolk Fine, Date: 1198 (available at http://aalt.law.u= h.edu/AALT7/CP25(1)/CP25_1_153_1-12/IMG_0292.htm).

In the first fine, reference is made to William de Huntingfield and Isabel = his wife and their heirs. The second and third fines refer to William de H= untingfield and Isabel his wife and the heirs of Isabel.

It is interesting to see original documents dating from the 1100's, especia= lly several involving a famous Magna Carta baron.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)