GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-10 > 0939295524


From: Reedpcgen< >
Subject: Amicia, illegitimate daughter of Hugh, Earl of Chester
Date: 07 Oct 1999 11:25:24 GMT


Though Doug's hypothesis that Amicia might have been daughter of Earl Hugh 'de
Kevelioc' by a previous unknown marriage is technically possible, there are
very good reasons for believing this is not the case, and that Amicia was
illegitimate.

Hugh, Earl of Chester, and Vicomte d'Avranches, was born in 1147. He married
Bertrade de Montfort (a cousin of the King, who gave her away), daughter of
Simon, Count d'Evreux, in 1169, when he would have hardly been twenty-two. He
died in 1181, aged about 34, but she lived until 1227.

They had one son and four daughters, the son being Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl
of Chester and Lincoln, who married as his first wife Constance (widow of the
King's son), daughter of Conan, Earl of Richmond and Duke of Bretagne (by his
wife Margaret of Scotland).

Ranulph was born about 1172/3. His birth was preceded by that of his sister
Maud, who was born in 1171. Of the four daughters who became heirs of their
brother on his death in 1232,
(1) Maud married David, Earl of Huntingdon, brother of William the Lion, King
of Scotland.
(2) Mabel married William d'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel and Sussex.
(3) Alice married William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby.
(4) Hawise, suo jure, Countess of Lincoln, married Robert de Quincy [son and
heir apparent of the Earl of Winchester].

Thus these four sisters married men of the highest rank in England--not just
Earls, but many of the most powerful magnates of the realm. The Earldom of
Chester itself was a powerful entity, in that it had been granted 'princely'
authority that came with the Palatinate.

NOW compare this with Amicia. She married, before 1181 [the year of her
father's death], Ralph de Mainwaring [Mesnilwarin], a local Cheshire gentleman.
Though he was justiciar of Chester for about ten years, he was not even one of
the traditional hereditary barons of Cheshire. In an undated charter, Earl
Hugh granted Ralph three knights' fees to be held by the service of two, in
frank marriage [liberum maritagium] with his daughter Amicia [see William
Beaumont, ed., _Tracts written in the controversy respecting the legitimacy of
Amicia..._ (Chetham Society) 78-80:449-50; and Geoffrey Barraclough, ed.,
_Facsimiles.of Early Cheshire Charters_ (Oxford, 1957), 46]. Was this a
reasonal marriage portion for the eldest/elder daughter of an Earl?

There is a VAST difference between three knights' fees and an Earldom.

There are other compelling reasons for believing Amicia was not a child by a
first unknown wife of Earl Hugh. The most prominent of Cheshire chronicles
[Richard Copley Christie, ed., _Annales Cestrienses, or, Chronicle of the Abbey
of S. Werburg at Chester_ (Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society)
14:xvii-xviii, 20-1, 24-5] records the birth of Earl Hugh in 1147, his marriage
to Bertrade in 1169, his knighting, etc. It is highly doubtful that this
chronicle, which focused on the family of their patron, the Earl of Chester,
would have overlooked an earlier marriage, and that such a marriage would be
overlooked in the Rolls Series as well. Also, the Earl and his wife Bertrade
were mentioned in many charters. If the Earl had had a first marriage, it
would be remarkable that there would be no charters involving her or that no
charters should be granted for the good of her soul (among the sould of his
ancestor, wife Bertrade, or others, as was typical).

So, (1) taking the Earl's young age at time of marriage, (2) comparing the
level of marriages of the Earl's known legitimate issue to Amicia's match with
a local gentleman (not even a Cheshire Baron, let alone a peer), and (3) the
omission of any mention of such a said previous marriage in chronicles,
foundation charters and accounts, etc., I see little reason to hold that Amicia
was the daughter of an unknown first marriage. Also, her marriage was granted
during the Earl's lifetime. Had the Earl's only son died before the Earl's
death (a scenario which not infrequently happened), Amicia would have been
senior daughter and coheir of her father. Given this possibility it is even
less likely the Earl would have married a legitimate daughter to Ralph and
given them only three knights' fees in frank marriage!

At the death of Earl Ranulph, it was found that his holdings throughout England
were worth more than four times the value of the palatinate County of Chester
[see Sir Geoffrey Ellis, _Earldoms in fee..._ (London, 1963), 108]. As such,
rather than dividing the Earldom of Chester, the eldest daughter Maud was
allowed the caput of the Earldom without division and the other three sisters
were satisfied with lands of like value elsewhere. Maud's son John 'le Scot'
was next Earl of Chester.

pcr

This thread: