GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-04 > 0861078368
From: "Alan B. Wilson" < >
Subject: MARMIONS in the ancestry of Thomas Bradbury
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 21:26:08 -0700
The descent of William Bradbury from the Marmions of
Checkenden in Oxon is adequately documented and apparently
noncontroversial. It appears in Weis, Ancestral Roots, line
246A:27-42. The Checkenden Marmion line can be traced in the
text of Rev. H. E. Salter's "The Boarstall Cartulary" Oxford:
Oxford Historical Society, 1930, pp. 2-3. The pedigree of the
Checkenden Marmions appears in pedigree chart form in T. R.
Gambier-Parry, "A Collection of Charters Relating to Goring,"
Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society, 1931, p. lx. A scant
listing by John B. Threlfall of this Marmion descent appears in
TAG lvii (April, 1981), p. 98-99, "Thomas Bradbury Ancestry
Table Additions." The line is greatly extended and amplified in
two privately printed editions of Threlfall's book, "The
Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury and his Wife Mary Perkins," 1988 and
1995.
MARMIONS OF CHECKENDEN:
1. Sir William Marmion, held Checkenden 1218, d. before 1221.
2. Geoffrey Marmion, b. circa 1198, d. before 1255.
3. William Marmion, b. circa 1229, d. 1266.
4. John Marmion, b. 1260, d. 1330/1331, m. circa 1273 Margery,
dau. of Henry de Nottingham.
5. Thomas Marmion b. circa 1285/1290.
6. Alice Marmion b. ca 1320, d. before 1367, m. before 1353
William Harlyngrugge of Checkenden.
The main line of the Marmion family, who held Scrivelsby in
Lincolnshire and Tamworth on the border of Warwickshire and
Staffordshire, has been more difficult to sort out. This is
primarily because there were four consecutive holders of the
barony named "Robert" (as shown by Round, "Feudal England," pp.
156-157). This has made it difficult to firmly associate
documents naming "Robert Marmion" with a particular generation.
(Indeed, at least one of these Roberts named two of his sons
Robert.)
Also some authors have ignored and others have diverged on
the placement of a daughter of Gervase, Count of Rethel, who was
married to one of the Robert Marmions.
Below is what I now have for the main Marmion line, with
some attention paid to the reasons for the identification of the
daughter of Gervase of Rethel (which comes from Moriarty). The
rest of the line is consistent with an early work by C. F.
Palmer, "The History of the Town and Castle of Tamworth,"
Tamworth: J. Thompson, 1845, and, so far as they go, with Salter
and Gambier-Parry, mentioned above. My question about the
connection between the Checkenden Marmions and the main line of
Marmions, which I shall present below, however, does not hinge
upon the correctness in detail of the latter half of the main
line of Marmions.
MARMIONS OF SCRIVELSBY AND TAMWORTH:
1. Roger Marmion, alive during Lindsey Survey , 1115-1118, d. say 1130.
2. Robert I Marmion, b. circa 1109, slain 1143/1144, m. circa
1130/1133 Milicent, dau. of Gervase, Count of Rethel & Elizabeth
de Namur. Milicent m. secondly Richard de Camville. Robert
evicted the monks of Coventry and profaned their church.
C. T. Clay in an article, "Marmion," in The Complete
Peerage, viii, 505-522,indicates that Milicent's parentage is
unknown. He lists (?)Elizabeth, dau. of Gervase, Count of
Rethel, as the wife of Robert II, son of Milicent (who appears
below). Schwennicke (ed.) Europaische Stammtafeln, iii, 625
also lists Elisabeth de Rethel as wife of Robert de Marmion who
d. 1181. ES cites Cockayne viii, 509, in connection with this
table so this cannot be taken as an independent confirmation.
Moriarty in TAG xx (Jan, 1944), 255-256, points out that
Alberic, Canon of Huyon-sur-Meuse states that Clarembald de
Rosoy, who m. Elizabeth de Namur after the death of Gervase in
1124, in order to disinherit her, married the only daughter of
Gervase out of the country to a certain noble of Normandy named
Robert Marmion. But Alberic does not give the name of the
daughter or specify which Robert Marmion was her husband. The
daughter of Count Gervase was married about 1132/3, so
chronologically it would more likely be to Robert I than to
Robert II. The mother of Count Gervase of Rethel was Milicent
of Montlhery. Thus Milicent, the wife of Robert I could have
been named for her paternal grandmother.
Queen Adeliza of Louvain, wife of Henry I, gave part of
Stanton, Co. Oxon, to Milicent, wife of Robert Marmion, "cognata
mea." Stanton passed with Isabel, dau. of Milicent and Richard
de Camville to her husband, Robert de Harcourt as her
maritagium, and Stanton Harcourt has subsequently remained in
that family. Queen Adeliza was a second cousin of the daughter
of Gervase, both being descended from Albert III de Namur, d.
1102, & Ida of Saxony.
Moriarty concludes, in view of these arguments, that it was
Robert I who married the daughter of the Count of Rethel, and
that her name was Milicent. This corrects Palmer, "History of
the Baronial Family of Marmion," 1875, Watson (The Genealogist,
n.s., xiv, 70), Clay in "Complete Peerage" (vii, 509), and, of
course, although not then published, ES, iii, 625.
3. Robert II Marmion, b. before 1133, d. circa 1181, m. Maud de
Beauchamp, dau. of William de Beauchamp and Maud de Braose.
About 1170/1175 Robert grants the church of Checkenden to the
Priory of Coventry (Boarstall Cartulary No. 1). This Robert,
son of Milicent and Robert, about 1175 to 1180 also grants a
third of Checkenden to a William Marmion, and confirms to this
William the gift of another third of Checkenden which he had
earlier granted to William's brother, Geoffrey (Boarstall
Cartularies 20 through 23).
4. Robert III Marmion, b. circa 1155/1156, d. 1218, m. firstly
unknown, (mother of Robert IV, below), m. secondly Philippa.
This Robert became presiding Justiciary of the barons-errant.
He was Sheriff for Worcestershire in 1185, 1187 and 1190. Near
the end of his life, circa 1210-1218, with his wife, Philippa,
he gives land in Stoke and Checkenden to the monastery of
Barbery (Boarstall Cartulary No. 25.).
5. Robert IV Marmion, d. circa 1241/1243, m. Juliane, dau. of Philip de Vassy.
6. Philip Marmion, d.s.p.m. circa 1291/1292, m. firstly Joan,
dau. of Hugh de Killpeck, m. secondly Mary.
John Threlfall in his 1981 TAG article and in his book on
the ancestry of Thomas Bradbury reports William Marmion who held
Checkenden in 1218 to be the son of Robert II Marmion, son of
Milicent, who granted the church at Checkenden to the Priory of
Coventry. Since the daughter of Gervase de Rethel and Elisabeth
de Namur is of undisputed Carolingian descent, if this linkage
were correct Thomas Bradbury would be of Carolingian descent
(whether Milicent were the "de Rethel" daughter as Moriarty
argued and as I presented above, or an "Elizabeth de Rethel" m.
Robert II as in CP and ES).
Neil Thompson in a critical review, "An Alleged Descent from
Charlemagne for Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts: A Flawed
Attempt," The Genealogist ix (Spring, 1988), 80-84, questions
the link between William Marmion of Checkenden and Robert
Marmion, son of Milicent de Rethel. In April 1994 in a review
of Gary Boyd Roberts's book "The Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants," TAG lxix, 125-126 Thompson criticizes Roberts for
including several false descents one of which was the descent of
Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts (which appears on p. 461 of
Roberts). In April of 1996 Stuart Baldwin approvingly cited
Thompson's critical remarks about Roberts's book, including the
example of Bradbury, in a post to soc.genealogy.medieval. In
April of 1997 Baldwin posted an almost identical comment, again
including Thompson's critical remarks and the example of the
false Bradbury descent. (Of course, by the same token, Weis's
"Ancestral Roots" which includes this descent, and the
questioned linkage, in line 246A, should be comparably
discredited. Indeed Weis (Sheppard?) adds a note at the end of
the line indicating that he had read Thompson's critique and
considered it adequately answered by Threlfall.)
There are two documents which Threlfall points to which, he
argues, warrant the inference that William of Checkenden is a
son of Robert II, son of Milicent. Both of these (unfortunately
for the likes of me) are in medieval Latin.
The first of these is Boarstall Cartulary No. 8, written
Jan. 25, 1339, in which the monks of Coventry, who had been
given the church at Checkenden by Robert II, quitclaim the
advowson of Checkenden to John Marmion (#4 on the list of
Marmions of Checkenden).
"Notum sit omnibus tam presentibus quam futuris quod nos
frater Henricus, prior ecclesie cathedralis Coventrie, et
eiusdem loci conventus unanimo nostro concensu remisimus et
penitus quietum clamauimus de nobis et successoribus nostris
Iohanni Marmyon, domino de Chakendene, heredibus et assignatis
suis imperpetuum totum ius et clameum quod habuimus vel aliquo
modo habere potuerimus in advocacione ecclesie de Chakendene,
quam habuimus ex donacione et concessione Roberti Marmyon
cuiusdam antecessoris predicti Iohannis pro satisfaccione et
salute anime patris dicti Roberti pro irrecuperabilibus dampnis
et enormiis [sic] iniuriis, que idem pater dicti Roberti quondam
multipliciter et maliciose intulit ecclesie nostre et
predecessoribus nostris, habendam et tenendam predictam
advocacionem [&c.] in perpetuum. Et ne anime antecessorum dicti
Iohannis vel sua penam vel periculum molestiarum et iniuriarum
occasione quacunque predecessoribus nostris et ecclesie nostre
ac eciam nobis, ut premittitur, hactenus illatarum, quod absit,
incurrant, nos mera et unanimi voluntate perfecte compuncti
intuitu caritatis animas antecessorum predicti Iohannis ac eciam
suam in pleno nostro capitulo ab omni reatus vinculo, quo
verisimiliter credi potest ipsas occasione premissa merito
constringi, in quantum in nobis est absolvimus per presentes.
In cuius [&c. sealing], data in capitulo nostro Coventrie die
Lune in festo conversionis sancti Pauli apostoli anno domini
MCCC tricesimo octavo."
My dear high school Latin teacher in the 1930s, Mrs.
Sickman, gave up on me after Julius Caesar. Here is the
translation of deed from the monks to John Marmion as presented
by Threlfall (p. 298).
"Be it known to all so now as in the future that we, brother
Henry prior of the Cathedral church of Coventry, and the convent
of the same place, by our unanimous consent, remit and quit
claim for ourselves and our successors, to John Marmion, lord of
Checkenden, his heirs and assigns, forever, all right and claim
that we had or in any way will have had in the advowson of the
church of Checkenden, which we had by the gift and conveyance of
Robert Marmion a certain ancestor [antecessoris] of the
aforesaid John, for atonement and good of the soul of the father
of the said Robert, for irreparable damage and enormous
injuries, which the same father of the said Robert so
extensively and maliciously inflicted on our church and on our
predecessors [predecessoribus], to have and to hold the
aforesaid advowson, etc. forever. And so that the souls of the
ancestors [antecessorum] of the said John should not, God
forbid, incur either penalty or peril of annoyance and injury by
whatever cause by our predecessors [predecessoribus] and our
church and also us, as mentioned before, because of those
matters hitherto mentioned, we, completely motivated by a pure
and unanimous desire in consideration of charity, insofar as we
are able, absolve for the present the souls of the ancestors
[antecessorum] of the foresaid John, as well as his own, by our
full chapter, from every constraint of guilt by which it can be
reasonably believed that they were constrained on the foresaid
occasion. In whose . . . etc. sealing, done in our chapter
house at Coventry on the feast of the conversion of Saint Paul
the Apostle the year of the lord 1300 thirty eight (i.e., 25
January 1338/9)."
The crux of Neil Thompson's doubts on the ancestry presented
by Threlfall is, Thompson says, that the word, "antecessor,"
"has the double meaning, depending on context, of 'ancestor' or
'predecessor' [in title] and does not carry with it any specific
blood relationship at all."
Threlfall responds that the monks twice in this deed use the
word "predecessoribus" to refer to their own predecessors--the
monks who were so abused by Robert I. They three time use the
word "antecessorum" to refer to Robert II and/or Robert I's
relation to John, and that it clearly means ancestor.
I would appreciate the opinions of those participants in
this forum who have expertise and experience in the
interpretation of these medieval Latin documents as to what
seems to be the more appropriate interpretation.
I also notice (assuming that the translation presented by
Threlfall is reasonably accurate in other respects) that these
good monks have not only absolved the souls of John's
"antecessorum" from every constraint of guilt due to the
transgressions of Robert I, but they have also absolved John's
own soul from guilt for that act. If John's only relation to
Robert I was as a successor lord of Checkenden due to earlier
property transfers, would his soul require absolution for the
sins of Robert I?
The other document relevant to the purported linkage between
William and Robert II is a record of a lawsuit which occurred
about 1270. It is reported in the Great Britain Record
Commission,"Placitorum in domo capitulari Westmonasteriensi
asservatorum abbreviato," London: George Eyre and Andrew
Strahan, 1811, p. 182. The text is considerably longer than
that in the quitclaim considered above. Moreover it is in a
form of Latin script with squiggles which couldn't possibly be
transcribed in ASCII character code.
In this dispute about the advowson of Checkenden church
Robert II who had made the grant to the Priory of Coventry is
described as "antecessoris" of the underage heir, John Marmion.
This raises the same question whether the term denotes an
ancestor or may simply describe a succession in position as lord
of Checkenden.
I should be very pleased to snail-mail a photocopy of this
squiggly Latin text of the legal dispute to anyone who may be
able to judge its relevance in determining the linkage between
the Marmion lines (or to anyone who is simply curious) who will
send me a mailing address.
While I am not sanguine that a definitive
judgement--"proven" or "disproven"--will necessarily result from
consideration of these texts in this forum, I was not happy with
the discrediting of the Bradbury line by dint of repetition of
the claim that it had been disproven without any consideration
of the evidence.
--
Alan B. Wilson
This thread:
| MARMIONS in the ancestry of Thomas Bradbury by "Alan B. Wilson" < > |