Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The only 100% definite reference to those de Rollos-descended Saddingtons that I have seen to date is a charter, likely dating from 1195 (i.e., 7 Richard I), being a quitclaim on land in Richmondshire.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=xH...los%22&f=false

    British History Online's transcription of a 1964 history of Leicestershire says that the de Saddingtons held land in Mowsley from the reign of Richard I to 1286 (i.e., 14 Edward I).

    https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...vol5/pp248-256

    I think this is a transcription of the document in question, just one year off (i.e., 1285, or 13 Edward I).

    http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/...1_123_36.shtml

    British History refers obliquely to an undated charter which I believe, in context, can be reasonably be interpreted to take the early Leicestershire Saddingtons back to the de Rollos family.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

    In context, the Almeric, son of John, son of Richard de Saddington from this document must be a brother to the Roger de Saddington of the 1285 document. Being adults as of say the 1270s, they were probably born around 1240. John, then, would probably have been born around 1210, and Richard around 1180, using a 30 year average generation interval.

    Two Richard de Saddingtons alive in the reign of Richard I? It doesn't seem a huge leap to conclude they are likely the same person, or at least close relatives, like father and son. I think this is most likely the case, although it is a question well worth asking, especially since there is no direct evidence of de Rollos tenure in Saddington after the death of Richard de Rollos II in 1195. Apparently de Rollos family members attempted to revive their claims to Saddington through the 1230s, but by that time it had been granted by the king to Almeric de St. Amand. In this light, it seems fair to question whether the nature and extent of de Rollos holdings warranted the de Saddington branch of their family remaining in this neighborhood.

    Comment


    • One little knot in the early de Saddington story that I wish I could work out: The de Welham connection.

      It may not have an impact on the possible continuity of this name into modern times--the branch that seems most numerous is that of the Richard de Saddington of the reign of Richard I, and therefore likely of de Rollos stock--but one Roger de Saddington is mentioned as the son of an Adam de Welham in this document, probably dating from about 1270.

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

      Quite possibly de Welham was just another ephemeral cognomen assumed by a branch of the same de Rollos stock--three apparent de Rollos Saddingtons are witnesses to that same document.

      But then there is this confirmation of the royal grant of land in Saddington to Almeric de Saint Amand dated 1229 A.D.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...page&q&f=false

      It's a little confusing. It mentions specifically one portion of Saddington, 1 1/2 virgates (something like 45 square acres) which had originally been owned by Richard de Rollos, and then passed into possession of William de Lucy. British History Online alludes to the fact that the main branch of the de Rollos family lost their English lands in 1204 when they adhered to the French king Philip II after the conquest of Normandy, and that the first record of de Lucy's interest in Saddington was about 1210.

      The 1229 grant mentions that Thomas de Welham had received this property in free grant from de Lucy, but I don't understand how the king was then able to re-grant the same land to St. Amand. I believe that contemporary law required the confirmation of certain grants from heirs and feudal superiors. Is the king saying in 1229 that he is voiding de Lucy's grant to Thomas de Welham? If that is correct, and the grant to Thomas de Welham was voided, does the later appearance of the name Almeric in the de Saddington family indicate that any ill will had somehow been patched up by say 1270? Maybe through a family connection?

      Again, this Thomas de Welham seems to have been a contemporary of the John, son of Richard de Saddington who served as a witness to the ~1270 grant by Roger de Saddington in Mowsley. So there does seem to be a continuity of the de Saddington name in at least one branch of the family. It doesn't seem as if the old stock of de Saddingtons was simply replaced by a new family founded by a de Welham.

      One point that seems worth following up on is that Welham, like Thorpe Langton and West Langton, where the Saddingtons are later recorded, was held in fee by the Basset family. In fact, there is a record dated 1246 (i.e., 31 Henry III) from Staffordshire, where Ralph Basset of Weldon, Staffordshire (the same family the held the Leicestershire lands) names Thomas de Welham as his legal representative in a court case (i.e., "put in his [Ralph's] place") .

      https://en.geneanet.org/archives/ouv...d632c7029bb043

      Don't know whether this is necessarily significant, but William Basset appears twice in the household accounts of Queen Isabella for the year 1311/12 alongside one Richard de Saddington as a sumpter man, which I guess is a type of horse driver.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=x5...Basset&f=false

      Maybe Thomas de Welham and John fils Richard de Saddington were brothers? Maybe the original Richard de Sadington married a Basset?
      Last edited by benowicz; 1 October 2020, 05:25 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
        . . . [O]ne Roger de Saddington is mentioned as the son of an Adam de Welham in this document, probably dating from about 1270.

        http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

        Quite possibly de Welham was just another ephemeral cognomen assumed by a branch of the same de Rollos stock--three apparent de Rollos Saddingtons are witnesses to that same document. . . .
        That transcription is probably in error. This series of acquisitions in Bruntingthorpe around 1249 A.D. makes it clear that Roger Saddington was the son of THOMAS de Welham--most likely the same guy from the grant of Saddington to Almeric de St Amand in 1229.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=UR...page&q&f=false


        Comment


        • I guess I've made a couple mistakes of my own in this account. Most of them are trivial typos or over-generalizations with no real consequence. But my error here is interesting:

          Originally posted by benowicz View Post
          . . . But then there is this confirmation of the royal grant of land in Saddington to Almeric de Saint Amand dated 1229 A.D.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...page&q&f=false

          It's a little confusing. . . . Is the king saying in 1229 that he is voiding de Lucy's grant to Thomas de Welham? . . .
          I had interpreted the exception given to Thomas de Welham, "salvis bladis et catallis", to mean that the king was exempting only de Welham's moveable property from the grant to Saint Amand, based on interpreting the Latin "catallis" as the equivalent of the modern "chattel". Etymologically they are indeed connected, but I guess Medieval law added some twists to the idea of chattel that don't exist in modern law, at least in America. Historically, there had been a thing called "chattel real", which included any interest in real estate that did not automatically pass to the holder's heirs upon their death--such as would be the case in a reversionary gift.

          So that's interesting. Why would William de Lucy gift a life interest to Thomas de Welham? The specific word used is 'dono', ablative case of 'donum'--specifically a "free" gift, and not one made in contemplation of some other event, like a marriage, etc., which is referred to as "munus". If the grant really means what it says, and is not simple bureaucratic sloppiness, it raises questions about the specific type of relationship and circumstances surrounding the gift. People generally don't just give valuable property to strangers, but the language seems to preclude the gift commemorating anything like a marriage between the families. From what we've seen elsewhere, Thomas de Welham seems to have had some legal training, so he probably would have wanted to make sure the language of this grant accurately described his tenure with some specificity.

          Also, one of the Bruntingthorpe transactions calls Thomas Welham "de [S]adington". It's not one of the dated transactions, but it suggests that he may also have been known by that name in his lifetime. If the "John de Weleham" from the 1276 Leicester Hundred Rolls was the witness John, son of Richard de Sadington from the ~1270 transaction by Roger de Sadington at Mowsley, it could reinforce the idea that he was the brother of Thomas, and therefore making the equation of Richard de Sadington w/ Richard de Rollos "nepos" more likely, especially in light of the 1229 grant to Saint Amand.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=0A...rshire&f=false

          Comment


          • Originally posted by benowicz View Post
            . . . Why would William de Lucy gift a life interest to Thomas de Welham? The specific word used is 'dono', ablative case of 'donum'--specifically a "free" gift, and not one made in contemplation of some other event, like a marriage, etc., which is referred to as "munus". If the grant really means what it says, and is not simple bureaucratic sloppiness, it raises questions about the specific type of relationship and circumstances surrounding the gift. People generally don't just give valuable property to strangers, but the language seems to preclude the gift commemorating anything like a marriage between the families. From what we've seen elsewhere, Thomas de Welham seems to have had some legal training, so he probably would have wanted to make sure the language of this grant accurately described his tenure with some specificity. . . .]
            Haha! I think this just about proves that the old stock of de Saddingtons were indeed de Rollos descendants.

            An academic paper by Rosie Bevan and Peter G M Dale:

            https://www.academia.edu/27992920/Re...w_perspectives

            And page 92 of Early Yorkshire Charters, Vol. 5, part 2:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=xH...arters&f=false

            This particular William de Lucy was of Charlecote, Warwickshire and died in 1250. He was the son of Walter de Lucy who died about 1193. His second wife was Maud de Cotele of Frampton Cotterell in Gloucestershire. I haven't found her exact ancestry, but according to Early Yorkshire Charters, Robert de Cotele was a grandson of Richard I de Rollos, in 1208 claiming several of his manors--including Brompton-on-Swale,which Richard de Saddington issued a quitclaim upon around 1195, as discussed in a previous post.

            So this is why de Lucy made a free gift of valuable property to Thomas de Welham, most likely of a life interest in Saddington. They were related after all, even if only indirectly and by marriage. And to reinforce the point, here is this transcription of a waiver issued by Henry III in 1230, Calendar of the Close Rolls, Vol. I, page 452:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=Mu...page&q&f=false

            Almeric de St Amand was fined one mark for infringing on the property rights of Thomas de Welham in Saddington, at hearings held at Coventry where Thomas was represented by Richard, son of Godfrey and Roger "de Saddington". We've seen many records related to this Roger before specifically noting that he is son of Thomas de Welham, but this Richard must be the same fellow from the 1195 quitclaim at Brompton-on-Swale. Richard may have been rather old at this period, explaining why de Lucy would have made the gift out to Thomas--lengthen the period of the life interest and avoid any inheritance taxes. Although these proceedings would have been at least symbolically important to Thomas, given his apparent successful career as a lawyer himself, it's easy to see how his busy schedule could have conflicted with this court date.

            I'm not a formally trained historian, least of all with any specialty in Medieval law, but I think the circumstances here tell a pretty clear story. If I somehow got it wrong, I'd like to have it explained to me.
            Last edited by benowicz; 2 October 2020, 08:48 AM.

            Comment


            • It keeps bugging me that so many of the Anglo-FGC23343 people have clear Norman connections rather than origins in Aquitaine or Gascony, as would be suggested by the Basque Country origins of the ancestral clade Z209. I've seen plenty of casual references to parts of the Cotentin and Avranchin being settled by the remains of the Loire viking band after their defeat at the Battle of Trans-la-Forêt in 939, but nobody offering any tangible proof. This is probably pretty close.

              http://www.cndp.fr/crdp-rennes/crdp/...occupation.htm

              It's an interesting discussion of a viking camp near St. Malo in Brittany, very near the border with Normandy, including archaeology and its implications for interpreting historical texts. One credible interpretation in play is that this camp belonged to the leader called Incon (or "Aiquin"), succesor to Rognavaldr, leader of the viking bands previously active further south in the Loire valley.

              https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incon_de_Nantes

              Réseau Canopé has a pretty impressive site, focused on all aspects of art and culture. It feels like a state sponsored thing with input from tenured professionals, rather than a tourist board thing, so it seems pretty legit.

              Here's this unsourced map from wikipedia showing the St. Malo camp, among others in the area, suggesting that although historiography has focused mainly on the Loire vikings' base at Nantes, this area bordering Normandy also had a significant, enduring biking presence. Twenty years, at least, according to that one archaeological survey.

              https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loire-...retagne-fr.svg

              So I guess this makes some sense. Maybe the de Garnets weren't directly from Poitou after all, as suggested by their service to Roger de Montgomery. Maybe they were from Carnet, on the Norman-Breton border.

              https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Carn...965!2d48.54969


              Taken collectively, maybe all these Anglo-Norman FGC23343+ lineages will turn out to be an important indicator of the extent of viking recruitment of locals while on campaign. Certainly they all seem to be coming from the extreme west of Normandy.

              Comment


              • After an extensive search, I was unable to find any contemporary documentation of the de Rollos ancestors of the Saddington family before their arrival in England, although subsequent events do make it clear that their roots lay in western Normandy.

                The oldest accounts of the family are incidental comments in two histories of the priory at La Boutiere which was founded by Richard II de Rollos in 1189--one in 1371, written by a prior Guillaume le Gros, and another written in the 18th century. Neither of them appear to be based on contemporary sources, but describe the de Rollos as inheriting La Boutiere (and Bricqueville-la-Boutiere) through a daughter of the family of the Earls of Chester, who had earlier been Viscounts of Avranches and the Bessin. A third, 19th century account states, somewhat speculatively, I think, that the de Rollos acquired those properties through an heiress of the Bloet family.

                As I've said, none of these accounts seems to be based on contemporary documents, but there are other problems, too. For starters, the editors of Early Yorkshire Charters believe the chronology of a marriage to a daughter of one of the earls of Chester is impossible. Also, there is no evidence of those properties being ever belonging to the Earls or their predecessors. The Bloet-heiress theory may be more plausible, but the authors seem to make a mistake by saying this is the family of Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln, d. 1123. All the connections of that family take them back to the opposite end of Normandy. They are known to relate in some way to the Counts of Ivry whose earliest known ancestor was from Pitres, Department of Eure, and the feudal superior of Ralph Bloiet in Gloucestershire, the Bishop's brother, was Durand the Sheriff, also from Pitres. No mention of western Normandy at all.

                Etymologically, the surname Bloet emerged as a personal nickname, either from some derivative of the French word Bleu, implying a person of a pale complexion, or as some say, a Norse epithet derived from the same source as the modern English word 'blood'. Either way, it was and still is very widespread, presumably with many independent origins.

                There was a notable family named Bloet, members of whom appear in charters in the late 11th century as holding interests in properties which the de Rollos came to own in the next century, including Bricqueville-la-Bloutiere, Fleury, and Creances. Their earliest members include Nigel, Guillaume and Richard Bloet, who appear next to a member of the Neel family, Nigel 'vicomes', in a 1080 A.D. donation to the abbey at Lessay. After 1084, I can't find any mention of Bloets in this part of Normandy until 1258, so I can't discover the specific connection to the de Rollos, or even whether the ancient stock survived in the male line.

                Given the connection of the Vincent family of Great Smeaton in Yorkshire to the Neel Viscounts, through the de Coleby family of Manley, Lincolnshire, I think this might be the key. The Saddingtons and Vincents are likely either direct descendants of the same family as the Neel Viscounts, or some important tenants of theirs. Perhaps the de Rollos were, patrilineally speaking, a branch of the Bloets who adopted a new surname after acquiring that fief, Roullours.

                Comment

                Working...
                X