GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-01 > 0917605176
From: Dcrdcr4< >
Subject: Re: de Montfort / Fitz Maurice
Date: 29 Jan 1999 10:19:36 GMT
Hi Leslie:
In your recent posting, you refer to the wife of Maurice Fitx Maurice Fitz
Gerald as "Emmeline Plantagenet," daughter of Stephen "Plantagenet."
Actually, his wife is supposed to have been Emmeline Longespee, daughter and
co-heiress of Stephen Longespee. The Longespee family never used the name
Plantagenet, although Stephen's father, William Longespee, was a bastard son of
King Henry II of England.
Actually, I'm glad you raised the issue of the Fitz Maurice-Longespee match, as
it claimed repeatedly in print that Maurice and his wife, Emmeline, were the
parents of Juliana Fitz Maurice, wife of Thomas de Clare. It appears that
Thomas de Clare's wife wa named Juliana and I assume it is true that she was
the daughter of Maurice Fitz Maurice. However, Juliana's mother was NOT
Emmeline Longespee as claimed everywhere in print.
A careful examination of Emmeline Longespee's records shows that at her death,
Emmeline's IPM did NOT list Juliana as her daughter and heiress. Rather,
Emmeline's heir was her grand niece, Maud la Zouche, wife of Robert, lst Lord
Holand. In fact, all of Emmeline's property appears to have gone to Maud and
possibly to Maud's sister, Ellen.
As such, I think it is safe to say that Emmeline Longespee was NOT the mother
of Thomas de Clare's wife, Juliana, as commonly thought.
In this instance, I'm not certain just how or why historians tried to make
Emmeline Longespee out to be Juliana de Clare's mother as I can't find anything
to connect the two women. Regardless, Emmeline Longespee needs to be removed
as Juliana de Clare's mother.
Sorry, everyone, that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. As ever, Douglas
Richardson
This thread:
| Re: de Montfort / Fitz Maurice by Dcrdcr4< > |