GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-08 > 0934820221
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" < >
Subject: Re: Early MONTGOMERYs
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:17:01 -0400
Let me just lay out the origin of the question. We have three ancient
sources which address the parentage of Roger de Montgomery (husband of
Mabel). And they conflict with each other. Robert de Torigny wrote, in
his c.1139 redaction of William de Jumieges' Gesta Normannorum Ducum,
that Roger was son of Hugh de Montgomery by his wife Josceline, daughter
of Wevia. A slightly earlier source is a letter written by a Norman
clergyman (whose name escapes me) addressing a genealogical impediment
to the marriage of one of Henry I's illegitimate sons to a Montgomery
daughter. It provides very similar information, with one key difference
- that Josceline, wife of Hugh and mother of Roger, is given as daughter
of Senfria. Finally, there is a contemporary donation in which Roger
specifically names his father as Roger. That is the evidence, and all
the rest is derived one way or another from this evidence.
1) who was Josceline's mother. Most sources are split between accepting
Wevia and Senfria, based on whether they feel the historian or the
clergyman is more reliable. Thompson pointed out however that the
Mongomerys had extensive properties, most probably deriving from this
marriage, and this suggsts that Josceline was a substantial heiress.
Wevia had at least two sons, and perhaps several daughters, while
Senfria is not known to have had any sons, so she concluded that
Josceline was more likely daughter of the latter.
2) what is the parentage of Roger. Past recostructions have been split
in either proclaiming the charter or the combined testimony of historian
and priest erroneous regarding the name of the person involved. Thus
Roger is shown as either son of Hugh and Josceline (rejecting the
charter) or of Roger and Josceline (altering the testimony of the
historian and clergyman). The biggest problem with both of these
reconstructions is the chronology, for Roger de Montgomery was a
contemporary (perhaps even younger contemporary) of William the
Conqueror, yet these descents place him in the generation before
William, in spite of having an additional female in the line, which
normally shortens the average generation time. This it would appear
that the descent is missing a generation. (Note that Robert de Torigny
probably dropped a generation at two other places (Warenne and Giffard)
where there were two successive men of the same name.) This allows for
a solution which is more in line with all three sources as well as
chronology. Specifically, the Roger de Montgomery who was son of Hugh
and Josceline was the Roger, father of Roger named in the contemporary
grant, and not the Conqueror's comanion himself. This novel (at the
time) suggestion does a good job of harmonizing the available sources,
and from my perspective, must take precidence over prior
reconstructions.
ta
This thread:
| Re: Early MONTGOMERYs by "Todd A. Farmerie" < > |