GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-02 > 0918534201
From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Re: Maud [de Clere?], wife of Roger de Lacy [LONG]
Date: 9 Feb 1999 04:23:21 GMT
I don't have time to do a great deal of research on this matter right now, but
since some questions have been raised and I am involved, I took a little time
today to help sort some things out and get this started on an intelligent
footing. What I have determined (at this point) is that the wife of Roger de
Lacy (d. 1211) was definitely named Maud/Matilda, but we cannot be certain what
family she belonged to.
Here's a list of a few sources I checked for Maud/Matilda so others do not
waste time:
W. E. Wightman, _The Lacy Family...1066-1194 [but he does not cover this
marriage]
Barraclough's _Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester1071-1237 [nil]
The Chartulary of St. Werburgh, Chester (Chetham Soc. 79, 82) [nil]
Early Yorkshire Charters [no mention of Maud in any charter, though a pedigree
with no references calls her "de Clare"]
Curia Regis Rolls [nil]
Calendar of Charter Rolls [nil]
CIPM
VCH Yorks.
Red Book of the Exchequer [nil]
The Chartulary of St. John Pontefract (YAS 25, 30) [nil]
York Minster Fasti (YAS 123)
Yorkshire Feet of Fines 1218-31 (YAS 62) [nil]
Early Yorkshire Families (YAS 135) [nil]
Reg. Antiquissimum (Lincoln RS v. 27-9, 32, 34, 41-2, 46, 51, 62, 67-8) [nil]
Register of Hugh de Welles, Bishop of Lincoln [LRS 1, 3, 4]
Robert de Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln 1235-53 [LRS 11]
[Final Concords, LRS 17; Charters LRS 18; Lincoln Assize 1202-9 LRS 22]
Lincoln Episcopal Records [LRS 2]
William Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees (3 vols.)
Pipe Roll Society:
66 (28) PR 1211
67 (29) Linc. Feet of Fines 1199-1216
68 (30) PR 1212
73 (35) PR 1214
74 (36) in memory of Doris Stenton
75 (37) PR 1214
77 (39) PR 1218
80 (42) PR 1219
Dugdale, Mon. Angl. 5:533-4, 6:314
Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees ... Testa de Nevill [see below]
As stated previously, _The Coucher Book of the Cistercian Abbey of Kirkstall_,
ed. by W. T. Lancaster and W. P. Baildon [Thoresby Society 8 (1904)], states
that Roger de Lacy married Matilda/Maud de Clere, sister of the treasurer of
the Church of York. W. Pailey Baildon was one of the best scholars of English
Medieval documents at that time, so I doubt they misread the original.
My thinking runs along the same lines as that of J. C. B. Sharp. All these
accounts (foundation charters, genealogies of the founders, etc.) were written
much later than the event; it is possible that the scribes, though possibly
copying from an earlier text, erred and confused Roger's wife with his
granddaughter Maud/Matilda, who married Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester
and Hertford.
Richard de Clare, b. 4 Aug. 1222 [CP 5:696-702], was a boy at the death of his
father, the Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, in 1230. His lands, wardship and
marriage were given to the Justiciar Hubert de Burgh, whose daughter Margaret
was secretly married to Richard. Hubert fell from grace in July 1232, whence
Richard again became ward of the King. His wife Margaret died Nov. 1237. The
Earl of Lincoln was to have Richard's marriage for 3,000 marks [CPR 1232-47, p.
200], and Richard de Clare was married to Maud de Lacy, daughter of John de
Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, by his wife Margaret de Quincy, by 25 Jan. 1237/8, when
he would have been fifteen. Maud (de Lacy) de Clare survived her husband, and
held the manor of Clare with other lands in dower, dying 1287-1289.
A. B. Emden, _A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A. D.
1500_ 1:423-4 gives a long and detailed biography of Bogo/Bevis de Clare, who
at one time was treasurer of the Church of York. But this source states that
he was a "younger son of Richard (de Clare), earl of Gloucester and Hertford.
Studying at Oxford with his brother, Thomas, in 1257.... pres[ented] by his
father [to Rotherfield] May 1258...." If this is true, Bogo would be son of
Maud de Lacy, not her brother. But as Gilbert de Clare, Maud de Lacy's eldest
son, was born 2 September 1243, this would have Bogo being presented to
Rotherfield at a very young age in 1258 if younger brother of Gilbert. But
even placing Bogo back a generation, we would have that he was brother-in-law
of Maud (de Lacy) de Clare, not her brother. Bogo/Bevis died at London 26 Oct.
1294.
Until 1218, the treasurership was combined with the Archdeaconry of the East
Riding of Yorkshire [York Minster Fasti (YAS) 123:vii, VCH Yk. 3:80]. So this
at least gives us a select list to choose from, assuming that Roger de
Lacy/Lascy's wife Maud was indeed sister of the treasurer of York.
We know Roger de Lacy's widow was definitely named Maud/Matilda and that she
survived him. Doug states that he recalls that she had a charter issued under
her own name of "de Clare" but I wonder about this. Perhaps there is confusion
with her granddaughter, Maud (de Lacy) de Clare, who would have used de Clare
as her surname. Doug thought the citation for this might have come from
William Farrer's _Honours and Knights' Fees_, but the only possible reference I
could find was 2:202, which reads, "Upon Roger [de Lascy]'s death in 1211 his
relict Matilda de Clare held West Halton in dower [citing to Bk. of Fees,
285]." It would be Farrer who also introduced the "de Clare" into the Lacy
pedigree in EYC.
But _The Book of Fees_, 285, does not designate her as "de Clare":
[under Candelisho Wapentake]
Matillis de Lasci est de donacione regis: terra sua valet in Ingoldismelis
xv.l.
[under Manle Wapentake]
Matillis de Lasci, mater constabularii Cestrie, est de donacione domini regis,
et terra sua valet in Halghton' xiij.l.
There are other pertinent entries too:
[p. 63-4] Roger de Lacy, Constable of Chester, is stated by chroniclers to have
died in 1211, but is mentioned [as if he were alive] in a roll which might be
dated to 1212. He is stated to have died on 1 October 1211 [Roger of Wendover,
_Flores Historiarum_ 2:58; Matt. Paris, _Chronica Majora_ 2:532; _Flores
Historiarum_ (ed. Luard) 2:140; Dugdale's _Mon. Angl._ 6:315; see also _Rotuli
de Oblatis et Finibus_ 472; _Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum_ 1:120]. The Pipe
Rolls show that the king's agents received profits from Roger's lands "as from
Michaelmas 1211, allowing to John his son 50l. a year to maintain himself in
the king's service." John de Lacy did not obtain livery of his father's lands
until 1213.
[p. 163 Candeleshou Wapentake, dated 1212] Domina Matildis de Lacy tenet de
domino rege in Ingaldemoles et in Schekenessa et in Steping et in Burg' et in
Partenay iij. carucatas dimidia bovata minus, sed necimus per quod servicium.
[p. 269, under Snayth, Yorks., dated between 1211 and 1213] Matillis de Lascy
est de donatione domini regis, et terra eius in soca valet xx.l.
[p. 285, Lincoln, dated 1219]
[Candelisho Wapentake] Matillis de Lasci est de donacione domini regis; terra
sua valet in Ingoldismelis xv.l.
[Manle Wapentake] Matillis de Lasci, mater constabularii Cestrie, est de
donacione domini regis, et terra sua valet i nHalghton' xiij.l.
[p. 362, Lincoln, dated 1226-8] Matillis de Lascy habet xx. libratas terre in
dote in Thoresby et Northecotes; et est de donacione domini regis.
In _Rotuli Hugonis de Welles. Episcopi Lincolniensis A. D. MXXIX-MCCXXXV._
[1209-1235], p. 218, we have Matilda de Lacy presenting Richard de Bela Fargo,
clerk, to Halton, "Annus Quartus Decimus" [c. 1222]:
Anno pontificatus domini Episcopi xiiij, v'to Kal. Junii, Ricardus de Bella
Fago, clericus, presentatus per dominam Matildam de Lacy ad ecclesiam de
Halton....
In _The Great Roll of the Pipe ... Michaelmas 1219_ [PRS NS 42]
[pp. 128-9, Lincolnshire] Matillis de Lascy debet j m. pro habendo brevi de
attingendis xij contra Willelmum Wibien et Henricum Quinchaut.
Matillis de Lascy debet dim. m. pro eodem contra Willelmum f. Radulfi et Alanum
f. Siwardi. Eadem debet aliam dim. m. pro eodem contra Robertum personam de
Toreby.
[p. 197, Yorkshire] Matillis de Lasci debet unam m. pro. eodem contra aabbatem
de Seleby et William de Polinton' et Rade de communa pasture in Cuwic.
I did not have time to check further in the Pipe Rolls as the library closed.
Nor did I have a chance to check the Coucher Book of Selby (YAS 10, 13).
Now this I wonder. Why mention that Margaret was sister of the treasurer of
York if the reference were to Bogo de Clare, even if in error? Why mention
Bogo when the Earls of Gloucester and Hertford--far more important
individuals-- were involved. Pehaps "de Clere" was a slip, but I would think
she may well still have been sister of the treasurer, who would also therefore
have been Archdeacon of the East Riding. I did not immediately find a list of
the treasurers/Archdeacons before 1212.
Even if the accounts which call Matilda "de Clere" and 'sister of the
treasurer' do not date before the fourteenth century, Maud (de Lacy) de Clare,
wife of Earl Richard, was still living in 1288, Bogo de Clare until 1294. And
Bogo de Clare held an extraordinary number of benefices and positions, as well
as being Papal chaplain by 1282 and King's clerk by 1285. If it were a slip
for htis Bogo de Clare, why call him treasurer?
We know that Maud/Matilda was the wife and widow of Roger de Lacy, whose
inheritance was one of the greatest in England (I posted information from
Sidney Painter about the valuation of his estates in January 1998, which if I
recall correctly were worth more than the Earl of Chester. Their son John de
Lacy was not made Earl of Lincoln so much by any type of inheritance as the
political and finacial power he weilded. So I conclude at this point that
Maud/Matilda was likely a sister of the treasurer/Archdeacon of the East
Riding, but cannot say that her surname was "de Clere" as a scribe's eye might
have slipped and put 'de Clere/Clare' where it should not have been.
I cannot, however, accept without direct evidence that the wife of Roger de
Lacy/Lascy issued her own charter under the surname "de Clare" as a wife
usually only reverted to a maiden name when either she had a great inheritance
or her own family's social standing was of much greater worth than that of her
husband or deceased spouse. This was not the case with Roger de Lacy.
Although I could see how Doug might have misremembered a charter given by
Maud's daughter Matilda (de Lacy) de Clare, and confused it with Farrer's
mistaken statement that she was Matilda de Clare. I myself might make such a
mistake if working solely from memory. So if there is actually such a charter
someplace, I'd like to see it.
John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, was apparently not born until about 1192, as he
did not succeed his father until July 1213 [which is also the conclusion of CP
7:676]. This means that Roger de Lacy may not have married Maud until about
1190. As J. C. B. Sharp noted in private correspondence to me, Geoffrey
'Plantagenet' the illegitimate son of Henry II was treasurer 1181-1189. (Bogo
de Clare was not appointed treasurer until 1285 [CPR 1281-92, 193].) But we
do not know when Maud's brother might have served as treasurer.
One final point might be made. If Maud was a de Clare of close relation to the
main stock, and it was a well known fact (it would have been), why was no
objection made when her granddaughter married Richard de Clare in 1238? The
"de Clere" family was quite prominent in Yorkshire anad Lincolnshire, though
they also had lands in Hampshire, etc., and is still a good candidate.
pcr
This thread:
| Re: Maud [de Clere?], wife of Roger de Lacy [LONG] by Reedpcgen< > |