GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-09 > 1001026264


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" < >
Subject: Re: Uchtred again (apologies in advance)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:51:04 -0600
References: <6c35317a.0109200745.2e6b4437@posting.google.com>, <MABBKIIDLFFPHHHMGNNIOEJNCDAA.moodyprime@prodigy.net>


Phil Moody wrote:

> I don't know what evidense there might be that Uctred was the son of Earl
> Waltheof (d. 1075), but I know of no sound reason why it cannot be possible.
> Todd, appears to believe differently, though he has not demonstrated exactly
> why he believes Waltheof was not Uctred's father. I see no reason to think
> that Maud and Uctred could not have different mothers.

Waltheof was not some minor personage, nor did he fade into
obscurity. He flew high and fell hard. The status of his
inheritance, one of the biggest in England at the time, was well
known. His claim was not jure uxoris, and any son would have put
forward some claim to some part of it. There was no son, in any
of the sources.

Waltheof father of Uctred, and Earl Waltheof both could have had
an interest in Tyndale, at different levels of infeudation.
Considering how common the name Waltheof was, you need more than
just the coincidence of names to conclude that a personage as
well known as Earl Waltheof had a previously undetected and son
and heir who was passed over without mention.

taf


This thread: