Notes
Matches 1,601 to 1,650 of 1,662
| Notes | Linked to | |
| 1601 | Urchadh mac Murchadh (died 943) was King of Maigh Seóla. Biography Urchadh is one of the earliest attested king of Uà Briúin Seóla, who's rulers also seems to have exercised some authority over Iar Connacht. His dynasty, the Muintir Murchada, took their name from his father, Murchadh mac Maenach. The Ó Flaithbertaigh family would later claim him as an ancestor. Family Urchadh had an elder brother called Urumhain or Earca. Nothing else seems to be known of him. In addition to his son and successor, Donnchadh, he had three known daughters who achieved notable marriages - Bé Binn inion Urchadh; Creassa inion Urchadh; Caineach inion Urchadh | Aurchada King of West Connacht (I2266)
|
| 1602 | Venn, J. A., comp., Alumni Cantabrigienses, London, England: Cambridge University Press, 1922-1954 | Source (S132)
|
| 1603 | Virginia, Prominent Families, Vol. 1-4 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2001. Original data: Louise Pecquet du Bellet. Some Prominent Virginia Families. Lynchburgh, VA, USA: J.P. Bell Company, 1907. Chapter XXIII the Fisher History The following extracts are taken from an old ancestor's journal, commencing with a voyage from London, May, 1750, for Yorktown in Virginia, and ending in August, 1755, on his return from Philadelphia on horseback for Williamsburg, Virginia: Should this chance to come to your hands, it will, I presume, afford neither you nor good Mrs. Mosley any extraordinary satisfaction. I long ballanced with myself whether I should ever write a journal at all. It not being in my power if I wrote truely, to entertain you with any other than doleful instances of Anxiety, Disappointments, Misery, and Repentance. But being no stranger to your Equinim and good sense, inflicting at the same time; That the consideration of the short duration of the accutist misions in this Life, must be some consolation to reasonable People, I determined on presenting you with a sketch of some of our sufferings. Not that I have any great claim or Title to compassion: or reason to expect uneasy sensations in any of my English Friends for any injury I have endured; for I obstinately persisted in acting against all their sentiments and kind expostulations, and whatever Ills have happened are mainly the result of my own Vain conduct; and as to myself especcially, I must entirely acquiess that Providence is Just. As I have the utmost reason to believe-may shed a tender Tear for my poor Wife and Family (who though involved in my Calamities, are innocent of the occasion) I ought perhaps to desist; for what right have I to create concern or uneasiness in him, or indeed, in the Beast [Breast] of any Friend: Yet fortified in my idea of her and your generous and extensive consideration, I will proceed in Confidence, that she as well as you can pardon Errors, you are incapable of committing. I shall I believe trouble you with much scribbling, and without method, yet upon the whole I hope to express myself so, as to make our melancholy adventure Intelligible; endeavouring to maintain a sincere attachment to Truth by expressing upon all occasions by own wrong headedness with the same vivacity and freedom as I shall remark or point out the mistakes or meannesses of those People. When Persons in very needy or depressed circumstances are guilty of falsehood, Fraud, Injustice, or other meanesses, One may in some measure, account for, and in part excuse them; But when People of Affluence or large Fortunes, (superior one would think to all temptation), stoops to base and unworthy actions, the most generous and candid minds can hardly forbear writing their inward disdain in severe censures. If I have not heretofore fully informed you of the Chief motives of this my undertaking you will now I trust indulge my writing it. Being by the secret contrivance of two pretended "though false friends stript of my employ, It conduced greatly to augment my opinion of the World's Treachery, and as I had been brought up to no particular trade or occupation, I considered the savings of our united Industry and Frugality, for more than Twenty years, might be soon wasted in a Land abounding in luxurious Temptations. I moreover reflected that Trade in general was less intricate (not requiring so much Art or Skill) in Virginia than in England; commodities being usually rated according to the Invoices at so much per cent. Besides, as I fancy you will recollect, contrary to your and the opinion of all my Friends, I possessed with the fond Idea That People here were more Innocent, Just, and Good, than on your side of the water: Unhappily the most vehemently infected with those strange Notions, I incessantly teazed my poor reluctant wife to comply with my desires: and after several years struggling and controverting about this unhappy affair, I at length succeeded; what I believe did not a little contribute to vanquish my wife's prejudices (as I called them) was my assurance that her children would be removed from the infinite temptations, false Pleasures, Snares and Delusions, which every where abounded in Brittain, to a Land of Sober temporate regular Enjoyments, where Industry, Probity, and the Moral Virtues were only encouraged, cherished or regarded. Alas! what shame and confusion must arise, in being compelled to own the falacy and absurdity of all these charming Dreams. But however what determined the dispute in my favour, was an old acquaintance of mine, who had just married much as he thought beneath himself, joining with me in support of my argument. His pride could not bear the thoughts of the world reproaching him with this marriage, concluding he could no way so well conceal his indiscretion as by going with me to America, on which he was so very intent;-That being down at Gloucester some time before our setting out, and hearing that I was about to depart without him, he wrote me a most beseeching letter that I would wait the conclusion of his affairs. This ardour in Him for the Voyage, with the consideration of having a Female companion on Board, quite subdued my wife's Seruples, inducing her also to submit to the Voyage. Believing now I had no more to do than to obtain some worthy recommendation, I applyed myself to Mr. Dowdswell and you. Mr. Dowdswell gained me several Interviews with Mr. Alderman Bethel, and I had all the reason in the world to conclude they were both sincere in their intentions of serving me. Mr. Bethel at my first seeing him informed me he had already mentioned my Case to one Mr. Hanbury, an Eminent Virginia Merchant of his acquaintance who was he said to do me all the service in His power, and desired I would call upon him; but as to either of the Mr. Nelsons whom I, so anxiously desired to be recommended to, He (Mr. Hanbury) had no kind of dealings with them: however, I was told his acquaintance in the Country was otherwise very large and extensive, and with People of the First Rank and Fashion there. But so unfortunately infatuated was I, That I excused myself from waiting on Mr. Hanbury, acquainting Mr. Bethel that no other recommendation would content me, than the two Mr. Nelsons. My reason for this unhappy prejudice was, That I had in early Days lived in York, and had been acquainted with Old Mr. Nelson the Father of these Gentlemen. Mr. Bethel to do all that I could reasonably expect from him assured me he would endeavor to gratify my desire in finding out a Person who had some influence or acquaintance with the Mr. Nelsons, and accordingly in a few days he let me know he had met with such an One. He gave me also to understand, that my confining him thus to particular Persons had obliged him to make use of One with whom he was not at all acquainted, Yet he did not doubt of his procuring for me with those Gentlemen, Favour, continance and Practition, which was all I craved, and indeed all I was ambitious of. The Person's name who thus undertook to recommend me was Hunt, a Virginia merchant also, tho' not so considerable as Mr. Hanbury. My Friend (Mr. Kiddle) procured me another kind Letter from Mr. Sydenham, another merchant, to his Father in law in Virginia (Mr. Jordan) which Letter given to me unsealed would I believe have been very serviceable to me, had I not on our arrival in Virginia taken it out to seal and laid it upon a shelf in the State Room where mice got at it and unhappily utterly defaced it. The latter end of March, hearing that the Ship Berry, Capn. Belcher Master, was fitting out for Virginia, I went and viewed its conveniences, and then apply'd to the Captain for a Passage for my Family, and altho' besides paying for our Passage I offered him Twenty Guineas for the sole use of The Cabin, he hesitated about the matter pretending he had not conveniences for a Family, and that his Cabin was partly engaged. My Friend Mr. Sydenham observing the oddity of the Captain's behaviour, advised me to go directly to Alderman Whittaker who he said had chartered the Ship. I did so; and Whittaker at once assured me, the Cabin was wholly unengaged and that if he liked my proposal, he would treat with me for it. But when I intimated my inclination to agree with him for our passage only, and that tho' I would gladly engage the Cabin of him, Yet I should like to treat with the Captain about the Price, as I was desirous of pleasing a man I should be so long with, imagining it also to be a perquisite of his own. Herein the Alderman assured me I was mistaken, That the Captain was a mere Cypher, and could engage for nothing without his orders, and he himself was the only Person I could talk with to any purpose: where upon I made him the same offer for the Cabin I had done to the Captain,-viz-Twenty Guineas. He paused a little and then told me my offer was not amiss, and if I would call the next Day he would give me a positive answer. When I came at the time appointed, he assured me the affair was concluded: That I should have the Cabin entire and as I paid so well for it, he would take care my family should have the best of Treatment on Board. In paying Mr. Whitaker for our Passage (April 12th:) I freely opened to him that a week's time beyond the 27th: (the utmost time he had prescribed for the ship's sailing) would be very valuable to me, as it would afford me an opportunity of selling off my goods etc. to greater advantage. But I soon perceived distress was a wrong argument to use with him, for he immediately called his Clerk to witness, that if I was not on Board by the time he had set, the money I had paid should be forfeited: May - he said I ought to pay the expense of the ship from the 23rd, for if I was on board that Day, the Ship would infallibly said the Day after. This could admit of no reply; I concluded myself highly favoured, not supposing it possible that a Gentleman of so oppulent a Fortune and an Alderman of London could be guilty of a calm and deliberate untruth. Therefore I did not fail bringing my Family and Goods on Board on the morning of the 27th. But what was my disappointment and Vexation when on entering the Ship we found not the least preparation of a Vessel for the sea. Every kind of thing in litter and disorder. The Cabin in the utmost filth and nastiness. No cradels or Hammocks for our Beds, or other conveniency for Lying down to Rest: My poor wife in the utmost agony, bitterly exclaiming that here was a true specimen of the misery she must expect to endure in this wretched undertaking. When I mentioned to the Mate the assurance Alderman Whitaker had given of the Ship's sailing, the day after I came on board, he with a peculiar sneer only said when you have known the Alderman longer, you will know him better. He is now seeking after Freight, and you will be well off if you sail this month. I had disposed of my House, and had now no other remedy but Patience. One day upon chance talking with our Captain a Person came up to Him with these words: Pray Captain Belcher, do you know any thing of the character of One Fisher, who goes Passenger with you to Virginia! Belcher knew I heard the question-replyed-this is the man. This person proved to be Mr. Hunt, whom as yet I had never seen; but He and I seemed confounded, at I presume the absurdity of his behaviour, in applying to such a Fellow as Belcher, an utter stranger to me for a character, after having received one from such a man as Mr. Bethel. However, recovering himself, he accosted me civilly enough, but could find nothing more to say, than that his name was Hunt and the Person, who at Mr. Bethel's request had favored me with two Recommendatory letters to the Mess. Nelsons, nor had I any other reply for him than that I was his most humble Servant, and had both his Letters in my Pocket. After standing some time silent, we separated with, "Your humble servant," and "Your humble servant," as silly as our meeting. This incident, foolish as it is, a little mortified me, and if I do not mistake, I mentioned the same to you, when I took my leave, but never uttered the least syllable to Mr. Bethel; it being I thought too late: besides-I fancied it carried the appearance of meaness to betray any jealousy or suspicion. The letter you offered in my favor from Mr. Waller, and another in effect from Mr. John Walthoe, tho' subscribed by his nephews to their Brother Mr. Nath. Walthoe Clerk of the Council for this Colony, you will perceive the importance of hereafter. It was the 15th of May 1750 in the afternoon, before we as the sailors term it broke ground, hove out, and with the Tide drove down the Blackwall where we came to an Anchor, and loitered away the next day. On the 17th, we moved again, but did not reach Gravesend till the Day after, when we came again to Anchor about nine in the morning. About Ten, the Captain and one Pincell a young Student in Physic of Ireland tho' he had been in France came on Board. On Saturday May 19th, about Eleven o'clock in the morning, just as we were getting under said a Gentleman came on Board and rushing a little hasty into the Cabin demanded to speak with one Mr. Sweeney, who he said was a Passenger in this Ship. We assured him, as we could very truly, that we had never seen or heard of any such Person and that, we were pretty certain no such was then in our Ship. The Gentleman not believing us affirmed he was sure Mr. Sweeney had taken his passage in that Vessel, and that the Canary Birds in the Cabin, pointing to some Cages of them which hung up there, did belong to the said Mr. Sweeney. This the Captain, who was also questioned, steadfastly denyed; adding moreover that Mr. Sweeney was no passenger of his; was not on board his ship, nor did he know of any intention he had of going with Him. All this, in the Captain especially, was I doubt a mistake; For after we had got under Sail, and the Gentleman, reluctantly, had quitted the Ship [Here, unfortunately, a part of two leaves of the old Journal have been torn from the book-and the next leaf commences with] 68 Pounds, which he told us from the Captain was all our allowance of that kind for the voyage husband it how we would. As we were nine Persons, this was not quite Eight pounds each. We had seen yet no Flesh save Beef, which neither I nor any of my Family could taste; worse can hardly be conceived. One of the men said, to his knowledge, Whitaker had victualled the Ship with damaged Provisions from a Man-of-War, which had been in the West Indies a long time. This account was generally credited by the whole Ship's company, and when the men came to be served with Pork, that also appeared so bad that the crew to a man unanimously refused taking any other Provisions besides Bread and Flour and that too, bad enough. It was moreover observed by them, that the Pieces of Flesh for four men weighed no more than 2 1/4 pounds, which as they said ought to have weighed 4 pounds, that had not the men proved uncommonly sober and orderly: (a strange wrong headed fellow of a mate ready at hand) a meeting must have ensued. However, the Captain affecting to concur in their Invectives against Whitaker, and the mate (honest Stephen) swearing horridly that on his return to England he would go immediately upon the Exchange with one of the Pieces of Meat in his hand, beat the same about Whitaker's Ears with these words-Here you R-ge, this is the Provision and allowance you laid in for your honest Seamen for a day. The men made a Virtue of necessity, and shifted the best they could. We for our Parts never eat any of their meat in all the Voyage, unless my son did sometimes put in with Mr. Saunder and his wife, who having been accustomed to gross feeding could not so easily govern their appetites. But myself and the most of my family subsisted almost entirely on Coffee, Tea and Chocolate, wherewith we were well provided; and now and then a starved Fowl boiled to pieces in a Sauce Pan. The latter part of our Voyage, My Wife and Children being almost at Death's door, were prevailed on by my Son to taste their nasty Pease Soup, which with a deal of dryed mint rubbed in, that we also happened to be stocked with, they were soon reconciled to, and it is to their sipping a little of this greasy stuff hot, every other day, that I sincerely attribute the preservation of their Lives. As the Captain found he could distress us in nothing so much as water, he would not suffer a cask, as is usual it seems, in other ships not distressed, to be brought upon Deck imagining we could none of us go down into the hold and fetch it; and the Cabin Boy said he had strict orders to do nothing for us; but necessity pressing, my Son soon found the way, which the Captain no sooner perceived than he put himself in a great Passion, swearing he would Clap a Lock up on the Pump; the mate Stephen also never failed to insult him whenever he catched him with a Tea Kettle of Water, having no other convenient utensil to fetch it in. However, so long as our strong beer, wine and brandy lasted we did pretty well, for a bottle of beer, a glass or two of wine, or a Dram, would commonly engage the Carpenter, or one or other of the Sailors, by stealth to slip a Tea Kettle full now and then into the Cabin. At length our Liquor save a Bottle or two of Brandy being all gone, my son continually abused and insulted, I determined on throwing off taminess. Accordingly about a week before we reached the Land, I came upon Deck and in the Presence of all the Gentlemen and many of the ship's crew demanded an allowance of water: six quarts or rather than fail, Pints a day; that is a Pint for each Person I informed him should make us easy. The Captain tho' in awe of none save Mr. Randolph, was a good deal confounded at this public and unexpected attack; hardly knew what to say, but at length answered-He could not justify putting one part of the Ship's Company to an allowance, unless all; he said too he did not deny me water, but I offering to prove the contrary by many witnesses, he did not choose to put me to the trouble, but calling the Boy, ordered him in future to supply us with water whenever we required, and we did not want afterwards. But I must now return back to: Tuesday May 29th. Mr. Sweeney's illness favoured the Small Pox in my and my Wife's opinion. A kindly sort; and altho' in the eruptions they appeared very thick, yet in general they were distinct, the Fever arising and the Postules filling very orderly, from whence we presumd to pronounce, there was no apparent danger. However-the Doctor and every other person who pretended to the least skill affirmed the Pock to be of a very bad sort, the confluent kind, and that the Gentleman was in a very dangerous Condition, and proposed bleeding and blistering as the only means of saving his Life. As the Doctor was regularly bid, I no further presumed to interfere, than by professing my ignorance in not perceiving more than ordinary danger; My wife too had happily conducted her four children (without any Doctor) thro' the same disorder, and was no more apprehensive than myself. Yet bleeding and blistering was attempted but thro' the unrulyness of the Patient, or the badness of the Flies which even supplied by the mate, the operation in either case was not very successful. Whether it is that People in general are pleased with what flatters their wishes; or that Mr. Sweeney might imagine his putting himself under the Doctor's care would considerably affect his purse; or whatever other motive he might have, I cannot say; but he (most unfortunately for us) earnestly requested that I and my Family would take him entirely under our care. Mr. Sweeney was a young married man. His wife whom he left at Hampton in Virginia about seven or eight months past was said to be there sick, and now supposed to be impatiently expecting his return. These moving considerations induced my family cheerfully to comply with his request, doing that which they never did for any other Person, myself and children only excepted; and that he might be the better accommodated and attended, we proposed removing him into the Cabin to us; but to this Mr. Saunder objected, his child never having had the distemper. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the difficulty and their own indisposition, this did not hinder my wife and Daughter from visiting and attending him daily, so long as there was the least appearance of danger. My son also at Mr. Sweeney's earnest importunity, tho' a thing very disagreeable to me, constantly sat up with him every other night. And as we were luckily stored with Sago, Pearl Barley, Wine, Saflron, all kinds of Spices, Hartshorn, etc., with every kind of Drug or Herbs as could be wanted in his disorder, we broke open our Boxes containing the several requisites, and became both his cooks and nurses. The weather was fine, moderately warm-we treated him with a cool regime, not too low. No salt meat, but now and then a chicken boiled to broth or soup. His water gruel, sago, or barley water, was generally encouraged with a glass of Wine and a little Saffron; he happening to say Rhinish was his most favorite wine; and there being none on board save what I had, and which was exceeding good, we sometimes refreshed him with a glass of that and a little sugar. And so by such sort of treatment as we gave him, notwithstanding the discouragement of his Companions, and his own too nervous and dreadful apprehension of his being always dying, and that he should never live to see his dear wife any more; he got thro' the distemper without so much as one unfavorable symptom. But to my Journal. Saturday, June 2nd. The Blister Plaster was put on Mr. Sweeney by the Doctor, but tore off again by the Patient before it had taken any effect, greatly to the displeasure of the Doctor and Mr. Swaddle, who thereupon abandoned him to our treatment. We caught two Bonettas (Fish) to Day, on which we all (Mr. Sweeney excepted) agreeably dined the next day, vizt. Sunday June 3rd, upon the quarter Deck under the awning, we had also a quarter of fresh roast Pork. We all esteemed Bonetta a good fish, as its name indeed seems to imply, and thus we spent Whitsunday. Monday the 4th. Weather still fine, we took six Turtles or Tortioses. Whether the fault may be in the cooking (an office which the mate undertook) I cannot tell, but nobody liked the fashionable viand, it being strong and Oily, tho' these were of the Hacoks bill and Loggerhead, and it seems it is the Green Turtle only which forms the modern Elegant Entertainment, not but I have heard it insisted on a good Cook will make a good dish of either of the other, and at sea especially. Tuesday, June 5th. At Two this afternoon we saw the Island of St. Morris (one of the Azores) braving W. by S., distant about 8 Leagues. As we did not keep to the Northward at the Azores or Western Islands, the Carpenter and Boatswain affirmed we ought to have run to the Southward for a trade wind. The Winds in these Latitudes, Vizt, from 30° to near 40° between those Islands and the Coast of America, are generally westerly and subject to storms and calms, hinting often their suspicion of the Captain's design of prolonging the Voyage upon account of the ship being chartered. But no man seen could be so wicked. Yet certain they said it was, that Whitaker had chartered the Ship at so much a month of Belcher Bro: in law and the mate's own brother, Swaddle. From the 10th to the 15th. Little winds, contrary or calm, and from thence to the end of the month. Contrary winds blowing hard with a great Western sea, Shipping much water, the men often pumping. Saturday June 30-was 39°, 29", Long. 41, 15. I had been ill a few days, afflicted as was supposed at our frequent visits to Mr. Sweeney. On hearing that I was not well, the Dr. asked Mr. Saunder (it seems in scorn) why I being a Quack did I not cure myself; this spoke upon the Quarter Deck, being heard by my Daughter who was sitting by my bed side near the Cabin door. She acquainted her Mother, and that Mr. Saunder far from resenting the Doctor's indecent behaviour seemed to concur in the Fun of the Company. My wife in a day or two after instanced this to Mr. Saunder as a piece of unkindness, or breach of Friendship in him; upon which hot words arose. I however entirely concurred with Mr. Saunder that he was under no obligation to enter into any dispute with Dr. Purcell upon the subject, or to disclose to us the subject of their conversation, till Mr. Saunder on being accused of joining in the ridicule began to use very foul expressions; as it is a "Lie Madam," and let me tell you once more it is a "Lye." This behaviour quite silenced me, and I said, not one word more on either side. A great reservedness ensued, in so much that we ceased to eat or drink together. Yet still this was private and among ourselves, till Sunday July the 8th, when one of the men who used to procure us water informed us that he overheard Mr. Saunders relating the cause of our difference to the Doctor and the rest of the Company in the Steerage, adding more over his Mr. Saunder's opinion that our intelligence could come from no other Person than my son, for which reason he advised them to forbid his approach to the Steerage. The Captain and honest Stephen it seems readily closed in this advice, but the Gentlemen would not agree to it. Not only the unjust charge upon my Boy, but the malicious manner of betraying our hitherto private conversation, exasperated me to that degree that I could not forbear going immediately upon the Deck, and in the presence of all the Gentlemen and sailors too reproach him with the unworthiness of his behaviour; the consequence of which was an irreconcilable difference. Doctor Purcell on this discovery came up to me, made a very civil and handsome apology for the words he had used, which I readily accepted, so he and I became and continued quite Friends. A melancholy accident happened on Board Sunday July the 1st, about Six in the Evening, wind at S. by E. a brisk Gale. Two men being sent up to hand the Fore Top Gallant Sail, the mast being rotten broke, and the two men who were aloft fell with it. One of them, Abram Bosdet, into the sea and was never seen more; the other Wm. Waterfield a Virginian born, was saved by a man (James Delridge, The Tailor) catching him in his fall on the Gunwall of the Ship. He was much bruised, but soon came to himself, and appeared in his business the next day. Poor Abram was a native of the Island Jersey, esteemed an honest, useful, sober, inoffensive man. He left a wife and family behind him at London. The Ship at this time went more than six miles an hour, Yet honest Stephen like one frantic ran backwards and forwards in the Ship and upon the Poop, calling out Abram! Abram! using some obscure expressions that as there was a man lost some enquiry should be made or somebody called to account: But nobody heeded him. There were no mutinous spirits in the Ship, unless one Passenger was such, and he was a Person of no greater Consequence than Stephen. The Carpenter indeed who was a sober thinking man said he had frequently even while the Ship lay in the River complained of the rottenness of the masts, but was never regarded, and that (in anything of a Gale) if he had been ordered aloft, he would not have gone, and would have given the obvious reason of his refusal. On Monday July the 2nd we set now about those kind of repairs, which considerably retarded our Sailing for some Days. The 9th we had 24 hours a fair Gale at N. and N. E. but then came about again to the old quarter S. W. Took a small Dolphin. Lat. 37° 57" Long. 51°, 22". All our ginger bread is now gone, and no white biscuit left but what is seen extremely mouldy and full of Maggots. July 20th had a fine Easterly wind for about 30 hours, when it returned to the old point till the 24th. Lat. 39°, 29"; Long. 63°, 31". Caught a small shark, about 7 foot long. Small breeze at W. E. till the 28th, when we caught Three fine Dolphins. We all dined together again upon the Quarter Deck, except my wife and children who excused themselves; Yet Mr. Randolph sent his servant with some Fish to them into the Cabin. This Fish was generally liked by all the Company, tho' some said they preferred Bonetta, of which number, I was one. Our Biscuit is now entirely expended, but we procure some of the Seamen's bread by the same means we used to get a supply of water. Mr. Saunder, his wife and Child, Since they left us, are acquainted with more of our distresses, they being upon very cordial terms with the Captain and Stephen. If this was the poor man's view in breaking with us, I could almost excuse him. July 29th we spoke with a scow of White Haven, who left Virginia 5 Days ago. They told us Cape Henry was distant about 77 Leagues. Wednesday August 1st: at 12 last night, we found ourselves in Soundings-Twenty Fathom water, and about Two o'clock this afternoon, saw the Land about Twelve Leagues distant, and as was judged about 70 or 80 miles to the Southward of Cape Henry. Dark weather, wind Easterly, blowing hard with much rain. We ran along the shore at the distance of ten or twelve leagues, hoping to make Cape Henry before night, but failing therein we stood off as well as we could all night, having enough to do to claw off the shore, the wind blowing very hard and setting right in. Thursday, August 2nd, having weathered the Coast last night, we at Daylight found ourselves about the same distance from the Land: Rains still very hard but wind abated; discovered Cape Henry 15 or 20 miles to the Northward. About dawn this morning we entered the Bay of Chesapeake, soon after which a Pilot came along side to offer himself; but our Captain, declined taking in or so much as speaking to him, but taking the advantage of a fine, fresh gale, and all our sails set and full, rushed by and soon left the Pilot a good way astern. The Pilot however still attended us as near as he was able, till we were terribly alarmed with the apprehension of our destruction, finding ourselves in less than Three Fathoms water. Mr. Sweeney assured the Captain all along that he was running up on a shoal called Willoughby's Point; but the Captain superior to all caution, was as confident we were passed it. However, now in the utmost terror and confusion, backed all sails and looked out Astern emploring the Pilot's assistance, who still followed us and seeing our danger good naturedly kept waving his hat (being out of hearing) to bear off to the Northward. We did so and he soon came up with us, himself came on board and put all things to rights. Thus through the avarice of the Captain in aiming to save about Forty Shillings (tho' nobody doubts but he would have charged it to the voyage) the Ship, a large cargo and all or most of our lives were upon the brink of being cast away, even in sight of our Port. Mr. Whitaker assured me when I engaged with him that the Ship was bound directly to York River. But as it appears, he afterwards Contracted to take the goods for Norfolk, a town upon Elizabeth river, which empties itself into James River. So having no remedy, we passed by Hampton when Mr. Randolph, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Saunder, Doctor Purcell and John Thorpe went ashore with the Captain in the Pilot Boat, and about two in the afternoon came to an anchor off Sewill's or Sowles Point, at the mouth of Elizabeth River, where we continued nine days. Friday, August 3rd-The boat going this morning with the Captain to Norfolk, I and my Daughter Molly took the opportunity of going also to procure some provisions and refreshments. We were very civilly entertained at dinner at one Captain Trigs, to whom I brought a letter from a Person at home, who fancied himself related to him, but it did not prove so. In the Evening we returned on board with Bread, Poultry, Fruits, Wine, etc. We now live very well with our Fresh Stores; and our worthy Captain wears a softer Countenance, condescending to mess with us very cordially, as does also poor Mr. Saunders. A boat came off the next day from Hampton, for Mr. Sweeney's things, and he intending an entertainment on the Sunday. Mrs. Saunder was ordered by her Husband in a letter to come on shore by that opportunity. Mrs. Saunder who cannot write herself, or will read writing, shews me the letter (for we were grown quite friendly) in the postscript; there was added, you may tell Fisher if he had a mind to come on shore, he may come in Mr. Sweeney's Boat; but not a word to me of any entertainment or any mention of my being civilly invited to it. One of the sailors who used to help us to Bread and Water one day informed us that Mr. Saunder since our difference had acquainted the Gentlemen by way of reproach to me, that it was entirely owing to my persuasions that he ever engaged in the Voyage, and that I owed him a large sum of money, for which he had no security. Mr. Sweeney too, I might have observed, when the danger of the small Pox was over, and he quite recovered, in a transport of Joy told us all at Sea how gloriously he would entertain us when he arrived at Hampton. Tho' the acceptance of his favor was one of the remotest things in my thought, yet I was much more offended at Mr. Sweeney's rudeness, than Mr. Saunder, and I determined upon letting him know it. I must further take notice that when Mr. Sweeney quitted the Ship, he took no kind of leave of any of us; not so much as calling at the Cabin door to bid one of my family farewell. Now besides the utmost kindness and care, my wife son and Daughter constantly manifested in his distress, even while his most intimate companions when the Pock was turning used to damn his stinking carcass, and wish it was thrown overboard, and his receiving nothing but the greatest Civility from all of us, ever since my Daughter Molly all the time we were at Sea had the sole care and trouble of feeding and nursing his Five Canary Birds, which otherwise must have perished, they being utterly abandoned by every other Person; nor did he after his recovering name the least care of them. Now what excuse or pretense Mr. Sweeney could have for affronting me, I could not conceive. If it was the concisest, it was not I am sure the handsomest way of dropping an acquaintance with one who showed not the least ambition or inclination of keeping any up. So I wrote to him, that if (as it was probable) Mr. Saunder (whose difference with me he was no stranger to) was authorized by him to give me that rude intimation that I might come a shore in his Boat, if I thought fit, his behaviour therein was so offensive and ungenteel, as his quitting the ship without so much as saying farewell to me or any of my family. Yet if he could recollect a single instance tho' ever so slender that we had any of us failed in point of civility to him, I should esteem him entirely justified. As to what was reported of Mr. Saunder's saying he thro' my persuasion engaged in this undertaking, I would, with Mr. Saunder have proved the contrary under his own hand. On Wednesday August 8th Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Saunder came on board full of resentment; Mr. Sweeney denyed his giving Mr. Saunder any authority for saying I might come on shore in his boat, and made very sensiless apologies for his manner of quitting the Ship, which, however, I accepted, to avoid further disputes with him, and matters between us were easily and seemingly very well accommodated, for we shook hands and he paid great thanks to me and my family for what we had done for him, saying he should be glad to see any of us at his House if we ever came to Hampton. These extraited compliments I received as he delivered them with great Civility; resolving inwardly at the same time never to give him any trouble. Mr. Saunder (poor man) could hardly speak for rage. He demanded £120 which he said I owed him, and he insisted should he paid him in a month at farthest; denyed his being under any agreement with me as to sharing any part of my goods, or anything else; and that nothing but money should content him. He further urged, that by my own Rule, it would be unjust in me to expose a private litterary correspondence which had been carried on in Friendship. In this last, I concurred entirely, assuring him I would produce no Letter nor part of a Letter without His leave, tho' I insisted in the presence of Mr. Sweeney, and two other Gentlemen who were with him (strangers to me) that he should acquit me of being the cause of his coming to America, any farther than (as I said willing to suppose) the Company of one with whom he had been so long acquainted might be an inducement. To this he readily assented. The paragraph which I proposed to have produced, was no more than this, taken from the last letter I ever received from him, dated Gloucester, March 20th, 1749, "I cannot give you the least Idea how discontented I am least I should be prevented going with you, but I should hope, you will not go without me; tho' I should not have it in my power to come up time enough in April." (I having acquainted him that April was the farthest time limited by Whitaker for the Ship sailing.) I also referred to my own letter to which this was an answer, for my having vehemently therein urged him to acquit his mother and sister (with whom he was then) with his circumstances and motives to this undertaking, and to take their opinion and advice therein; but this, as he afterwards confessed to me, he never did. To obviate this money affair between us, I must observe that on our determination upon this Voyage he actually did put the sum he mentions (£120) into my hands, desiring I would lay it out in Goods most proper for Virginia. I here upon showed him my Bills of Banks of all the goods I had already purchased, signifying likewise that I should gladly take over a large quantity of Tea which I had bought; also, of any part of which Goods, if he pleased, he should be a sharer so far as his money would extend, or indeed of the whole, allowing me Common interest only for so much money as I should employ more than him. This he gladly accepted, calling it an instance of Friendship and great kindness. But to all this we had no articles drawn, no witnesses, our friendship, as we both then vainly imagined, being superior to all forms. Shocked and surprised as I was at this demand of Mr. Saunder's, and as sensible as he or any of his advisers could be of the distresses I must inevitably be exposed to, I promised to exert my uttermost endeavors to satisfy his ungenerous, unreasonable demands. But previous to this we came to an immediate settlement before Mr. Sweeney and his friends wherein we quickly concurred there was a balance of £117 due Mr. Saunder, for which I gave my note payable in a month. Some of Mr. Saunder's best things, as his wife's best clothes, Linen, Plate, etc., being either for convenience or safety at his request put into some of our best Packages, he immediately demanded them, tho' York was the Port we and our Goods were shipped for. I submitted to his unreasonable demand, had the Ship's hold rummaged, and the required packages brought upon the Deck, uncased and opened before all the Ship's Crew. In thus tumbling them about, my Two best Chests of Drawing (of mahogany) in particular, tho' well matted, even grievously broke and injured by a Villanous and careless mate. And all this I endured because Mr. Saunder should not have the shadow of a pretence to reproach me. This affair over; On Saturday August 11th at six in the morning we weighed Anchor and again passed by Hampton: (Solis Point, the place where we lay, I should have noted, was just in the mid way between Hampton and Norfolk, twelve miles from each, The Ferry Boats constantly passing by our Ship all the time we lay there) with a southerly wind, we again turned into the Bay of Chesapeake, and lay that night off a shoal called the Horse Shoe. Next Morning Sunday the 12th, by the assistance of the Tide and a Small breeze at East, we got into York River. A little after noon the Captain and I went off into the boat leaving the Ship under sail about a League below York, where (it being little wind) we arrived before her. I called first at the Eldest of the Mr. Nelsons, who was not in town, nor expected home till the middle of the ensuing week. From hence I went to Captain Reynolds, whose wife I was formerly acquainted with, being the daughter of a Mr. Wm. Rogers, a particular Friend and intimate Companion of mine about Thirty years ago. She knew me at first sight. Here I dined. After dinner I waited on the Secretary the Honourable Thomas Nelson Esq., and delivered Mr. Hunt's letter of recommendation. He spoke civilly, but said he must confer with his Brother before he could talk particularly to me. This was the first and indeed the last time of my having the honor of a Conference with this Gentleman. In the Evening I returned on Board. Monday the 13th I again went on shore, delivered the certificate for my Tea to the Custom house Officer, Richard Ambler Esq. who remembered me perfectly, as I did him. He staid me to dinner, and at his Lady's request promised to accommodate me with a Home, tho' he could not conveniently spare it; the favour was the greater as there was none other to be had. [This Richard Ambler married Elizabeth Jaquelin.] Returned again on Board. The two next days, I likewise came on shore and visited several male old acquaintances, all of the other six, Mr. Ambler excepted, being dead. Thursday 16th, employed in getting my family and goods on shore; but through the mate's drunkenness and laziness, it was far into the afternoon before we could get quit of the Ship; however it happened several of our packages were broke open, one large chest all to pieces and many things lost, and a large Box containing sheets and Table Linen never came to hand at all; yet all things considered we were glad of our escape, and thankful to Providence that we came off even so well. In a day or Two after we had landed, I called again at the Honourable Wm. Nelson Esquires now returned, and delivered my other letter from Mr. Hunt. This Gentleman I thought received me with a conscious Dignity and great reserve blamed my enterprise, admitting that any one could be so weak as to prefer living in Virginia to Brittain, insinuating at the same time that without peculiar circumstances or reasons few Persons of sense would ever make the exchange, and the best advice he could give me was to repair my oversight by returning again to London, which if I was inclined to do, there was he said a ship of Mr. Hunt's in the River that would sail in a few days (a fortnight's time). This (greatly mortified as I was) I could not yet bear to think of, but said in case of receiving no encouragement here, I should rather Choose to try my Fortune in some other Colony upon the Continent; mentioning Pennsylvania. To this he replied pretty eagerly if I would go thither he would give me a letter of recommendation to one Mr. Allin, a considerable Person of his acquaintance in Philadelphia. But even this I desired to suspend. I then mentioned my having two recommendatory letters to Mr. Walthoe, to which he replied very coldly, "Perhaps now Mr. Walthoe may have it in his power to serve you." "(By the emphasis he placed upon the word now! I should imagine he meant to insinuate there was a time when Mr. Walthoe had it not so much in his power to serve me, but surely the observation was no more just or generous than for another to have remarked; That a time was when this great man's Father thought to bring a Boatswain to a Merchant Ship, no mean Preferment."). You will easily conceive with what a heavy heart, I departed from this great Person to meet the reproaches of my poor wife, tho' in truth my affliction was unutterable. My wife perceiving my grief and dejection, determined upon trying her success in obtaining at least his Honor's advice or opinion in this anxious state of our affairs. She was received with very great complaisance, both by his Honor and his Lady, but no council or advice, save that of returning again to Brittain, my wrong headedness in coming hither being the general topic of their discourse. On his saying he heartily wished himself and Family in England, my wife presumed to inquire whether he was sincere in that assertion. He assured her upon his word that if he could get out of business here, and had his substance in his own hands, he would remove to England with the utmost expedition. When I brought my family on shore, there stood upon the wharf an ancient grey headed Gentleman who called me by my name, took me by the hand, welcomed me into the country again. Told me he remembered me perfectly when I was Clerk in the office of Mr. Lightfoot; tho' I could not so well recollect him, I acknowledged his civility. This Person wears the name of Captain Gooding. (G.) As I wanted some silver to distribute among the sailors who brought my family ashore he obliged me in Changing a Guinea. In about a fortnight after this, as I was attending Mr. Nelson's store till he was at liesure to be spoke to, this same Captain G. happening to be there assumed a quite different behaviour to what he had manifested by the water side, for with a malicious sneer he began thus: I remember you Mr. Fisher ever since Coln. S. paid you the Ten Pounds that you recovered against him for his striking you. The widow and sons of the Coln, Smith (S.) being now living attached to and intimate with, if not allied to the Nelsons Family, I was extremely confounded to be thus accosted, and a difference revived which had been cemented Thirty years ago; and what augmented my confusion (if capable of being augmented) was a Pragmatical store keeper of Mr. Nelsons catching the opportunity with the highest Glee of demanding a relation of the story by Cox Comically saying, "Aye do Mr. Fisher, tell us how that affair was." I had hardly Spirits to bring out, that Col. (S.) and I were very good Friends long before I left the Colony, and that in the suit I brought against him no more than sixpence damage was given, and not one farthing of either Costs or damage was ever levied or taken of the Col. Captain G. in a most insolent overbearing tone replyed: "Nay, but you must not tell me! I remember the payment of the money myself as well as if it was but yesterday, and that it was absolutely Ten Pounds." This so astonished me, that I could not utter a word for some time; at length recollecting myself a little, I beseeched the Captain would reflect this matter might easily be decided; for as I humbly presumed the Record of the Court were still in being, it would thereby appear whether he or I was in the right, without any further contest about the matter. Upon my mentioning the Record, the change in these two persons countenances was very extraordinary, and whether they ever looked into the Record or not, I cannot tell-but neither the storekeeper nor the honest Captain, tho' I have frequently met them since in various places, would never know or speak to me any more, yet this is all that I ever did to offend them. If the honest Captain did not conceive by this extraordinary piece of evidence he might some how recommend himself to some body or other, I am unable to account for the difference of his behaviour at the Wharf, and in Mr. Nelson's Store; for the rest, I am at no difficulty. Nothing is more common than for the injured to forgive; but that is not so frequently the case with him, who does or but attempts to do the injury. Indulge me with Patience, and I'll give the foundation of this Story concerning Col. Smith. "When I was in the country before (about the year 1722) Deputy Clerk of the Court to Mr. Lightfoot, Col. Smith was a Justice of the Peace and a Representative in the House of Burgesses, for the said County of York. This gentleman who was drinking at a Public house just by my office on Saturday evening sent for me and required I would forthwith issue a writ against some Person he then named, and made it returnable to the next Court, which was the ensuing Monday. This I told him very civily could not be, as the Law required Three Days between the issuing of a Writ and the return thereof. He said I might date the writ the day before, for he would have it done, alleging that such things had been done by my Betters. This last I said I would not presume to dispute, but that the dating of a writ backwards never had yet, nor never would be done by me; whereupon he struck me with his cane, but I then being a younger man than he took hold of his collar with one hand and his cane with the other, laid him on the floor and his cane by him, and departed. And tho' it was said he broke Two of his ribbs in falling on the Hilt of his sword, I was for several reasons prevailed upon to bring an action: One was that as it was more scandalous in a Magistrate than an indifferent person to break the Peace, it was but just to expose him in his own Court. The action was brought and Six pence damage given, which, nor the Costs were never levyed. My Master Mr. Lightfoot said I was quite right in all I did." And if I have any remembrance of this said Capt. Gooding (G) it seems to me to be by his being one of the Jury for conversation once on Shipboard in our passage and John Randolph in speaking of the disposition of the Virginian, very freely cautioned as against disobliging or offending any person of note in the Colony we were going to; for says he, either by blood or marriage, we are almost all related, or so connected in our interests, that whoever of a Stranger presumes to offend any one of us will infallibly find an enemy of the whole nor right nor wrong, do we ever forsake him, till by one means or other, his ruin is accomplished. I refused then to acquire use in these sentiments, and I wish I could truly say I had no reason to do it now; yet I never offered the least injury to any of them, nor can I hitherto have offended either of the Mr. Nelsons, unless my unfortunately obtaining a recommendation to them from Mr. Hunt can justly be termed an offense. In the midst of these discouragements and heaviness at heart, I determined however on seeing Mr. Walthoe, and accordingly went over to Williamsburg, (about 12 miles) delivered my two letters from his Brother Mr. Walthoe and his nephew Mr. Hart. He received me very civilly, but used very few words. I found him at breakfast or Tea and at his invitation drank two dishes with him. He said if I inclined to settle in Williamsburg or elsewhere, I might expect any friendly offices in his power. Seeing me afterwards in the Town, he called to me and recommended me as his Friend to some of his acquaintance who were there with him. They all welcomed me to Virginia, and I dined with them at a Tavern where he treated me. In the evening I returned home more easy than I had been any time since my arrival. I don't know how it was; but I was too much dejected and dismayed by my reception at York to say anything to Mr. Walthoe concerning my difficulties with Mr. Saunder: a great unhappiness that I omitted it. Three weeks of Mr. Saunder's month were now gone, and what to do I could not tell. At last, I resolved to set forth my case clearly by letter to the great man. This I did by informing him of our agreement, and our differences, with all the circumstances, together with Mr. Saunder's demand, earnestly imploring his aid in the most supplient abject terms that I had ever used to any Mortal in my life. Assuring him he should have my Tea or any other of my goods made over to him to double or treble the value of what would be necessary to enable me to get quit of Mr. Saunder. That I should request the loan of the Money for six months only, for which with greatest thanks and gratitude, I would pay any interest. Having sent this letter, I waited Three Days with the utmost anxiety for an answer, which not then coming I assumed the resolution of going myself to his house, to learn if possible his pleasure; but what was my anguish on enquiring for him when I was told by a servant his Master had set out yesterday (the day before this) on a journey to an Estate a great way up the Country, and would not return in less than three weeks, and that he had left no kind of word or message concerning me. The humanity of an answer tho' a peremptory refusal, I thought, I might reasonably have expected. Mr. Saunder who remained at Hampton 25 miles below York came up with a deal of Fury demanding his money with great threats. I had sent him an account of the steps I had taken and now showed him a copy of the beseeching letter I had wrote to Mr. Nelson; but this availed nothing. If I did not make over my goods, he said, directly to him, enabling him to sell them immediately for what they would fetch, he would without further ceremony throw me into jail. Exasperated with such various distresses, and these additional insults, I calmly bid him do his worse, for I would endure any kind of misery sooner than persist any longer in craving his compassion, or even so much as changing another word with him. This, how strange so ever, had a better effect on him than all my submissions and entreaties. He became cool at once, declared his distressing of me would afford him no pleasure, and that he would readily acquiess in my proposal of receiving my supplication to Mr. Nelson on his return and would wait the event. He staid with me two days, grew friendly, open and communicative: said he had an inveterate dislike to the People;-the best of those whom he had met with being malicious, subtil, treacherous, Said he was determined on returning to England; advised me to sell off all, and do so too; for that in the end he was sure I would find Mr. Nelson advising my immediate return would be the best I should ever receive from him. However, if we must part, let it be amicably, and that the least mention of our unhappy animosities might not be made hereafter to any of our English Friends. I declined all engagements save this, that he might rely upon my never aiming to do him the least prejudice either at home or abroad. As to himself, he was at his own liberty to relate as little or as much of our adventures as he pleased. He moreover assured me Mr. Sweeney entertained a deal of secret malice to me, on the account of what I had insinuated of his ingratitude in my letter to him, having sworn that he would do me all the mischief he could: that he had already began to prosecute those aims in exposing my letter (as a very insolent one) among all his relations and friends, particularly in Coln. Cary's family, whom he had endeavoured to prejudice and inflame with the most rancorous representations. To put what he said beyond all doubt, he drew out of his pocket book, the very letter I had wrote to Mr. Sweeney avowing that having done me all the injury with it, he was capable of, he Mr. Sweeney had delivered it to him for the declared purpose of doing me what mischief he possibly could in England. But Mr. Saunder said, disdaining the Villany, he took the letter with no other view than to return it to me again, in case I would restore two or three letters which he Mr. Saunders had wrote to me before we left England. But in this I begged to be excused, repeating my assurance, that I did not detain them with any view of doing him the least injury. And as to that letter of Sweeney's, I believed he was very sensible; so far as it concerned me, it might be very freely communicated to the whole world. After two days stay with me, Mr. Saunder set out for Hampton. He shed tears at parting, assuring me now that his threatenings were assumed with great difficulty, that sooner than he would so distress me any more; if I could raise a sufficiency to pay his expenses back to Brittain he would have the rest to be remitted at a convenient opportunity. As soon as ever I heard of the great man's return, I received my supplication, and if possible in more prostrate, abject terms that I had done before, exagerating the obligation above life or any other enjoyment the preservation of my poor family only expected. This letter went early in the morning, but I had no answer all the day. The next morning between Ten and Eleven, his Lady came on a Seeming visit to my wife. She was no sooner seated than with a very distant air she informed me, if I had any thing to say to Mr. Nelson, he was now at leisure. I went instantly and acquainted him with Mr. Saunder's threats and demands of instantly selling my goods for what they would bring. He coolly replied, he did not see anything amiss in what Mr. Saunder required, but rather wondered I should refuse to comply with his demand-and as to what I urged about the cruelty of taking advantages of the distressed, or how much I should be a gainer could I but obtain a little time to dispose of my Things myself, it made no impression on him. But I still continued to beseech his assistance, assuring him he should not run the least risque as I would actually make over and put into his possession much more than the Value of what he should advance for me. He at length said, he should not think of assisting me until he had first spoke with Mr. Saunder. I hereupon informed his Honor that Mr. Saunder had made one journey already at considerable expense, and if he would have the goodness to remit the money to him at Hampton by an order upon some merchant there, or by any other method he thought proper, it would be an additional act of goodness in him, and I should always return it a great augmentation of his favor; adding moreover, if there was any charge accruing thereby, I would most thankfully pay it. To all which he very abruptly answered, I will do no otherwise than I have said. So I wrote forthwith to Mr. Saunder, and he accordingly came up again. He was obliged to continue at York two nights more, before we could have the happiness of being admitted to Mr. Nelson's presence, he being either at breakfast or Dinner engaged with Company, walked out or otherwise busied. But the morning after the second night informed us we might attend him at his store on our approach. He only asked Mr. Saunder whether he had any share or claim to any part of the Tea I was possessed of: who answered No-Nothing else of consequence passed between them. From whoever it seems the apprehension of his being some how overwatched or imposed on by me in the property of the Tea was the most apparent reason of giving Mr. Saunder this trouble-for immediately upon his saying No, his honor handed me a written Instrument with these words-There Sir!-Sir if you like that! Too terrified to make objection, had I discovered any cause, I just cast my eye on the writing, which I returned again with an humble cringe, signifying my assent by saying; "Yes Sir, exceedingly well." He said, he must have Two of the Chests of Tea put into his possession, for by a calculation he had made, they would not amount to much more than the money he should advance. I replyed it was far from me to desire or expect any other. The Deed expressed, that in consideration of his Honors lending me the said money amounting to £117-Sterling, if the said principal sum with lawful interest was not repaid in Four months from the date thereof, the said Tea deposited as a security for the said sum should become forfeited to the said Honourable Mr. Nelson, and liable to be sold for the payment of the said Principal and Interest. As to my urging anything concerning the six months, the time I requested of his Honor, I judged it neither prudent nor safe. Mr. Saunder received the money, and we came to my house very joyfully, and after refreshing himself with such poor fare as we had with a glass or two of Wine, we took, a cordial leave of each other, wishing mutual health and happiness; and he then set out for Hampton. The saddle bags he brought with him being ancient broke with the weight of silver (a considerable part of the Cash being in that Specie). I lent him a stronger pair which he promised to return, and I doubt not of his delivering them for that purpose to some unfaithful hand; but I never could see or hear of them any more. He soon after departed for Bristol, where he safely arrived, Went to Gloucester, and since settled in Bristol, where it is said being seduced into a Partnership with one Baker, a Paper Maker, he was defrauded of the greatest part of a Thousand pounds upon which (as was also suggested to me) he used some indirect means (what I was not told) of putting himself out of the world. While we lay in the river Thames, we received an account of the death of his first Wife's sister, by which he said £300 was devolved on him. He wished several times that his Goods were there on shore again and his passage not paid; upon which account I had reason to think, he then regretted the undertaking, and this I am apt to conceive might be one motive to his quick return, notwithstanding his ascribing it to the Climate and People of this Country. Mr. Saunder's motive for resolving to come to America I may since his death be allowed to declare was entirely to be attributed to his second marriage; he having in his own and his Friends opinion matched a good deal beneath himself, a circumstance which he could not bear the thought of being reproached with. And it was merely upon this account that we discouraged the visits of our friend, while we lay so long in the river on board the Ship. And Mr. Winden and another of my wife's near relations, who came upwards of a hundred miles to take their leave of us, must doubtless be surprised and justly offended at a reserve and shyness so different from what they before had ever experienced; nor can they perhaps easily concur the pain and grief it occasioned to my poor wife in particular in acting a Part so opposite to our real inclinations. In this, our condition truly deserved Commiseration. While we were at sea, the first part of the Voyage especially, Mr. Saunder's sufferings (for aught I know), might be greater than ours; for he poor man, at some particular seasons had a voracious and most ungovernable appetite; of this his Relations are not insensible. And it (not unlikely) may be, this appetite not able to endure the abstinance and restraints we were subject to was the Chief if not the only motive to his forsaking us in the Cabin; for till those distresses, I never did perceive in him any thing that ever wore the appearance of falsehood, treachery or insincerity. And had he not been so distressed for Provisions and had we not both of us met with such an acquaintance as one especially who was on board, Virginia had been the best place Mr. Saunder could have come to-and after we had a little armed ourselves against the current Arts and subtilities of the natives, we should have lived happily in spite of them, quiet and independent. For whatever instance of Vulgar Craft or Villany. I shall be obliged to exhibit, I shall still stubbornly insist upon it, there are even among the Natives, people of Sense, probity and honor. Mr. Saunder's misfortunes as well as his faults have I believe been very considerable. His weakness I pitied, and had he sought it in time, would have forgiven, as I in general believed him to be a person of upright intentions. This affair of the Money being thus finished and perceiving clearly, I should have no willing aid or advice from the Mr. Nelsons, I went again to the Walthoes at Williamsburg, and by his kind aid took a house there. After I had left York, with the two first loads of Goods, my Wife wrote me word, that the Honourable Mr. Nelson had acquainted her he believed he could help me to a person who would treat with me for one of my Chests of Tea, but as I considered our retailing of it, would not only be a kind of employment, but attended with considerable more profit, I advised her to say nothing upon the subject, and I would endeavor to keep out of his way. But in less than a fortnight, my wife also being come away with the rest of our things, he chanced to see me in the street in Williamsburg. He spoke to me very Courteously and taking me a little aside acquainted me he would give five S. a pound for one of my Chests of Tea which is just 4 S. Sterling, wanting (at the least) Five per cent. I was afraid of refusing, for fear of his pressing me for the money before I could raise it,therefore told his honor, he was welcome to take which Chest he pleased. The Tea cost me 3-6 in the India House, exclusive of the charges of Brokerage, Bonding, repackage, Insurance, etc., and it was now safe arrived in good order, and the common price here by the pound was 7-6 or six Shillings Sterling. So that for want of my retailing of it (upwards of three hundred weight) I lost not much less than Forty Pounds this currency. It was indeed a considerable consolation that I had diminished my Debt a good deal more than one half, and I indulged in the hope of having obliged a person. capable of being a powerful friend. During our stay at York, (about 5 weeks) we had neither encouragement or spirit to open any of our Goods; so that the little Cash we brought with us being consumed, we had broke in upon the Queen Ann Crowns, half crowns etc, etc, which my Daughter Molly had been many years collecting, when very luckily, Mrs. Reynolds having tasted so | Baudet, Abraham (I6221)
|
| 1604 | Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings | Source (S50)
|
| 1605 | Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings | Source (S51)
|
| 1606 | Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings | Source (S316)
|
| 1607 | Walchelin de Ferrieres (or Walkelin de Ferrers) (died 1201) was a Norman baron and principal captain of Richard I of England. The Ferriers family hailed from the southern marches of Normandy and had previously protected the duchy from the hostility of the counts of Maine and Anjou. With the union of the domains of Anjou and Normandy in 1144, and the investment of Geoffrey V Plantagenet as duke of Normandy, most of this land lost its strategic importance. Walchelin was the son of Henry de Ferrieres, a nephew of Robert de Ferrers, 1st Earl of Derby. Like his father, Walchelin held the castles of Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire and Chambray for the service of 5 knights. He had 42 and 3/4 in his service, enfeoffed in his lands. In England, Walchelin held the manors of Oakham in Rutland and Lechlade in Gloucestershire. He is known to have held this land since at least 1172. During the Third Crusade, he and his son and heir, Henry, served in the force of Richard I of England. A John de Ferrieres, believed to be a nephew, was also present. Walchelin had stayed with the King in Sicily. It is apparent that Walchelin was close in the counsel of the king. He and his knights arrived at Saint-Jean d'Acre sometime in April or June 1191. Some months previously, a distant relative, William de Ferrers, 3rd Earl of Derby had been killed at the siege. After the conclusion of the siege, Richard of England and Hugh III of Burgundy marched their forces south to the city of Jaffa. Along the road, several skirmishes broke out between the marching crusaders and the Saracen army marching parallel under Saladin. On 7 September 1191, the great battle of Arsuf was fought. Richard had made Walchelin a commander of one of the elite bodies of knights according to the chronicle attributed to Geoffrey de Vinsauf. Later, in 1194, Richard was imprisoned in Germany. Walchelin brought the treasure of Normandy to Speyer and gave himself as a hostage (along with many others) to the Western Emperor Henry VI. He was freed from captivity around 1197. His sons Henry and Hugh managed his estates during the years he spent in prison. Sometime prior to his death, the younger son, Hugh was granted lordship of the manor of Lechlade. Walchelin died in 1201 and was succeeded by his son, Henry. Henry sided with John of England over King Philip II of France until December 1203 when John left Normandy, never to return. At this point, Henry did Philip homage for his Norman lands. Hugh had left England and the care of Lechlade and Oakham went to their sister, Isabella, who was married to Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore. After her death, the land was escheated to the crown as Terra Normanorum. | de Ferriers, Walchelin (I5634)
|
| 1608 | Waldrada of Worms (aka, Waldraith of Toulouse (801-?) was the second wife of Conrad II, Duke of Transjurane Burgundy. They had two known children, Adelaide of Auxerre and Rudolph I of Burgundy. She was first married to Robert III of Worms, in 819 in Wormgau, Germany. This marriage brought in 820 a son, Robert IV the Strong. The marriage ended when Robert III died in 822. Some say her father was Saint William of Gellone. However, this may be unlikely. It is also unlikely that she is the wife of Conrad. While having been born supposedly between 790 and 801, she certainly could have been William's daughter, these dates are likely not accurate if she was also Conrad's wife. This is because her progeny with Conrad were born ca. 849 and 859, respectively. If these dates are accurate, then Waldrada had these children between the ages of 49 and 59 years old, at best. Given that menopause occurs in modern times between ages 45-55, it is possible that she was Adelaide's mother. Her being Rudolph's mother is more problematic. What is more likely is that she and the wife of Conrad are two different people. One possible solution is that the Waldrada who married Conrad II and Robert III is the daughter of Waldrada, wife of Adrian, Count of Orléans (767-824), who may (key word) be the daughter of William of Gelone. This is all conjecture, however. | of Worms, Waldrada (I332)
|
| 1609 | Waleran (or Walram) I (died 1082), called Udon, was the count of Arlon from AD 1052 and Limburg from 1065. He was the son of Waleran, Count of Arlon. He was also the advocate of the abbey of Sint-Truiden. The origins of his family are poorly known, he appears to have been a member of a collateral branch of the house of Ardennes, then ruling in Upper Lorraine. He may instead have been maternally related to that house. His mother may have been Adela, daughter of Duke Theodoric I. He inherited Arlon together with his brother Fulk, who died in 1078, leaving him sole count. Waleran married Jutta, daughter of Frederick, Duke of Lower Lorraine. This marriage gave him the county of the Len (or Lengau), a district around Liège. Waleran constructed a castle in his new territory: the Lenburg, whence Limburg. Waleran made this castle his seat and he is known as the first count of Limburg. His son, Henry, inherited his counties on his death. | Waleran I of Limburg (I5443)
|
| 1610 | Waleran de Beaumont, Count of Meulan, 1st Earl of Worcester (1104 - 9 April 1166, Preaux), was the son of Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester and Elizabeth de Vermandois, and the twin brother of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester. He is not referred to by any surname in a contemporary document other than 'Waleran son of Count Robert'. Early life Waleran was born in 1104, the eldest of twin sons of Robert de Beaumont, count of Meulan, who was also to become earl of Leicester in 1107. On their father's death in June 1118, the boys came into the wardship of King Henry I of England. They remained in his care till late in 1120 when they were declared adult and allowed to succeed to their father's lands by a division already arranged between the king and their father before his death. By the arrangement, Waleran succeeded to the county of Meulan upriver on the Seine from the Norman border, and the principal family Norman honors of Beaumont-le-Roger and Pont Audemer. His great possessions included the forest of Brotonne, which was centred on his castle of Vatteville on the left bank of the Seine. As part of the family arrangement, Waleran also received a large estate in Dorset centred on the manor of Sturminster Marshall. Rebellion and Imprisonment Late in 1122 Waleran was drawn into a conspiracy with Amaury III of Montfort, count of Évreux, in support of the claimant to Normandy, William Clito, son of Robert Curthose. The king however detected the conspiracy, and Waleran and his young colleagues were caught unawares by a preemptive strike by the king's army against the rebel centre of Montfort-sur-Risle. Waleran rallied and based his resistance to the king at his castle of Brionne. In October 1123 he lost his fortress of Pont Audemer on the Norman coast to a siege, despite calling in military help from his French relations and allies. After a winter of raiding, on 25 March 1125, Waleran proceeded to the relief of his castle of Vatteville, with his three brothers-in-law, Hugh de Châteauneuf, Hugh de Montfort and William, Lord of Bréval. The returning column was intercepted by a force of knights and soldiers of Henry I's household between Bourgtheroulde and Boissy-le-Châtel, the royal commander being given variously as William de Tancarville or Odo Borleng. The royal household troops decisively defeated Waleran when he attempted a mounted charge at the head of his men, shooting their horses from under them. Waleran's remaining castles continued to resist until 16 April 1124 when Waleran was forced by the king to order his seneschal Morin du Pin to surrender them. Waleran's lands were seized and he was imprisoned first at Rouen, then at Bridgnorth in Shropshire and finally at Wallingford Castle. Waleran was released for unknown reasons in 1129. He resumed an active role at court and he and his twin brother were both present at Henry's deathbed. He was probably involved in the discussions of the Norman magnates in December 1135 as to who should succeed to Normandy and England. Lieutenant of Normandy The accession of Stephen may have taken him by surprise but he had already offered his allegiance to the new king before Easter 1136. At the court he was betrothed to the king's infant daughter, Mathilda, and received the city and county of Worcester as her marriage portion. After Easter he went to Normandy taking authority from the king to act as his lieutenant in the duchy. In September he commanded the army of Norman magnates which repelled the invasion by Geoffrey of Anjou, husband of the Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I. He was also able to capture the chief rebel Roger de Toeni. He remained there until the following spring and then returned to England. The next year he attended the king on his tour of Normandy, crossed back to England with him at the end of the year, by which time he was beginning to undermine the previous ascendancy at court of the bishops of Winchester and Salisbury. He and his family began to monopolise favour and patronage at Stephen's court and they alienated the faction headed by Earl Robert of Gloucester, who in retaliation adopted the cause of his half-sister, the Empress. In June 1138, Waleran was in Normandy to confront successfully again an invading Angevin army. Waleran used his extensive connections at the French court to mobilise a large force of French knights to assist him. It was probably in 1138 that he received the second title of Earl of Worcester. He founded the Cistercian abbey of Bordesley at the end of that year to mark his arrival in the county. The same year his youngest brother Hugh received the earldom of Bedford and other relations were similarly honoured. Before Easter 1139 Waleran was in Paris on an embassy to his cousin, the new King Louis VII of France. On his return he was the motivating force behind the overthrow of the court faction headed by the justiciar, Bishop Roger of Salisbury. The bishop and his family were arrested in June, and their wealth and many of their possessions confiscated. Civil war With the arrival of Robert of Gloucester in England in September 1139, the civil war between Stephen and Mathilda's supporters got under way. One of the first attacks Gloucester sponsored was an assault on Waleran's English base at Worcester. The city was attacked and sacked on 7 November 1139. Waleran retaliated savagely against the rebel centres of Sudeley and Tewkesbury. Waleran was present at the Battle of Lincoln in 1141. He was one of the royalist earls who fled when they saw that the battle was lost. Waleran escaped, but the king was captured and imprisoned at Bristol. Waleran fought on for several months, probably basing himself at Worcester, where he had to deal with the defection of his sheriff, William de Beauchamp. It may have been at this time that he seized and fortified the Herefordshire Beacon for the bishop of Hereford complained of his lordship of this castle in 1148. At last late in the summer of 1141 Waleran gave up the struggle as news reached him that his Norman lands were being taken over by the invading Angevin army. He surrendered to the Empress Mathilda, and had to accept her appropriation of the abbey of Bordesley as it had been founded on a royal estate. However, once in Normandy, Waleran was accepted at the court of Geoffrey of Anjou, and his lands in England and Normandy were confirmed to him. His first marriage, to the king's daughter Mathilda, had ended with the child's death in London in 1137. Around the end of 1142, Waleran married Agnes, daughter of Amaury de Montfort, count of Évreux. As a result of the marriage he obtained estates in the Pays de Caux and the lordship of Gournay-sur-Marne in the Ile de France. Waleran had already obtained his mother's marriage portion of the honor of Elbeuf on the Seine on her death in or around 1139. Despite the political reverses on 1141, Waleran was considerably wealthier at the end of the year than he had been at the beginning. Waleran served with Geoffrey of Anjou at the siege of Rouen in 1143/4. During it he captured and burnt the suburb of Emendreville and the Church of St. Sever, where many of both sexes perished in the flames. He consolidated his position as leader of the Norman nobility by a formal treaty with his cousin Robert du Neubourg, seneschal of Normandy. However, Waleran seems to have turned his mind to the French court at this time. In Easter 1146 he was at Vézelay for the preaching of the Second Crusade and attended the great assembly of magnates at Paris from April to June 1147 to meet the pope and Louis VII. On 29 June he was joint leader of the Anglo-Norman crusaders on their rendezvous with Louis VII at Worms. He accompanied the crusade to Syria and its unfortunate conclusion before Damascus. He seems to have left Palestine before King Louis, taking the sea voyage home. He was shipwrecked somewhere on his return, perhaps on the coast of Provence. He promised to build an abbey of Cistercians if he survived the wreck, and in due course he built the abbey of St Mary de Voto (of the Vow) or Le Valasse in fulfilment of his vow. Political Decline Waleran's great influence in Normandy survived till 1151, but the new regime of Duke Henry was not sympathetic to him. He made the fatal error of temporising with the Capetian court and assisting the campaigns of Louis VII, his overlord for Meulan. Though his support gained Waleran the hugely profitable wardship of the great county of Vermandois during the minority of his young cousin Count Ralph II, it also led to his downfall. In the second half of 1153 he was ambushed by his nephew and enemy Robert de Montfort, who held him captive while his Norman and English estates were stripped from Waleran by Duke Henry's friends and officers. The earldom of Worcester was suppressed and his Worcestershire castles destroyed in 1155. Although Waleran was released, his power in Normandy was broken, and an attempt to reclaim Montfort-sur-Risle from his nephew was a humiliating failure. Waleran was an outsider at the court of Henry II, and between 1160 and 1162 lost his Norman lands and castles when he supported Louis VII against Henry II. His last years were eked out as a landowner and justice in the duchy. The last notice of his activities is a settlement of his affairs relating to his priory of Gournay-sur-Marne around the end of 1165. Twenty days before his death he entered the abbey of St Peter of Préaux, the ancestral abbey of his family south of Pont Audemer in Normandy, and died as a monk there on 9 or 10 April 1166. He was buried in its chapter house alongside several other members of his dynasty. Aristocrat and humanist Waleran was an important twelfth-century character in ways other than political. He was a literate man educated in the liberal arts and philosophy. The elegy to him by Stephen de Rouen, monk of Bec-Hellouin reveals that he composed Latin verse. In 1142 he tells us that he personally researched the deeds in the archive of Meulan priory before confirming its possessions. Like his twin brother, he also seems to have been an assiduous writer of letters and a number of them survive. He was also a literary patron, as Geoffrey of Monmouth dedicated the earliest edition of his History of the Kings of Britain to him in 1136. Waleran founded Cistercian abbeys at Bordesley, Worcestershire (1139), and Le Valasse, Normandy (c.1150), though in both cases the abbeys were taken over by the king. He was a generous patron of the two ancestral Benedictine monasteries of Préaux (St Peter for men and St Leger for women). He was besides accepted as advocate of the abbey of Bec-Hellouin, and was patron of its priory at Meulan, founding another at Beaumont-le-Roger. He founded a Benedictine priory at Gournay-sur-Marne. He endowed a major hospital at Pont Audemer, which still survives. Family and children He married, firstly, Matilda, daughter of King Stephen of England and Matilda of Boulogne, Countess de Boulogne, circa March 1136. She died in 1137 aged only four. He married, secondly, Agnes de Montfort, daughter of Amaury III de Montfort, Count of Évreux, and Agnes de Garlande, in 1141/2. He had children with Agnes de Montfort (the boys as they appear in order in his 1165 charter to Gournay priory): Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan. Isabelle de Meulan (d. 10 May 1220), married twice: ca 1161 Geoffroy, lord of Mayenne ca 1170 Maurice II, lord of Craon Waleran de Meulan Amaury de Meulan, lord of Gournay-sur-Marne. Roger de Meulan or Beaumont, viscount of Évreux. Raoul (Ralph) de Meulan. Etienne (Stephen) de Meulan. Mary de Meulan. He married, firstly, Matilda de Blois, daughter of Stephen de Blois, King of England and Matilda, Comtesse de Boulogne, circa March 1136. He married, secondly, Agnes de Montfort, daughter of Amaury III de Montfort, Comte d'Evreux and Agnes de Garlande, in 1141. He succeeded to the title of Comte de Meulan [France] on 5 June 1118. In September 1118 he remained faithful to King Henry I during the rebellon which broke out. In 1123 he was drawn into a conspiracy with William Clito, son of Robert 'Curthose'. On 26 March 1124 at Bourgtéroude, France, he was captured by the King. In 1129 the King set him free, and gave him back his lands. He was created 1st Earl of Worcester [England] circa 1138. However, under King Henry II's reign, his title of Earl of Worcester does not appear to have been recognised. He has an extensive biographical entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. Dictionary of National Biography Beaumont, Waleran de, Count of Meulan 1104-1166, warrior and feudal statesman, was the twin brother of Robert, earl of Leicester [see Beaumont, Robert de, 1104-1168] and the son of Robert, count of Meulan [see Beaumont, Robert de, d. 1118]. Born in 1104 (Ord. Vit. xi. 2), and brought up with his brother, he succeeded at his father's death (1118) to his French fief of Meulan and his Norman fief of Beaumont (ib. xii. 33). In the struggle of 1119 he was faithful to Henry I (ib. xii. 14), probably because too young to rebel; but the movement in favour of William Clito and Anjou (1112) was eagerly joined by him (ib. xii. 34). He was present at the conspiracy of Croix St. Leufroi, Sept. 1123 (ib.), and threw himself into Brionne (ib.). On Henry's approach, he withdrew to Beaumont (ib. xii. 36), whilst his castles of Brionne and Pont-Audemer were besieged and captured (Rog. Hov. i. 180, Hen. Hunt. 245, Sim. Durh.). On the night of 24 March 1124 he relieved and re-victualled his tower of Watteville, but was intercepted two days later by Ranulf of Bayeux, near Bourg Thorolde, and taken prisoner with thirty of his knights (Ord. Vit. xii. 39). Henry extorted from him the surrender of Beaumont, his only remaining castle, and kept him in close confinement for some five years (ib.). He was present with his brother at Henry's deathbed, 1 Dec. 1135 (ib. xiii. 19), but warmly espoused the cause of Stephen, and received the promise of his infant daughter in 1136 (ib. xiii. 22). Returning to Normandy after Easter, to assist his brother against Roger de Toesny, he captured him after prolonged warfare on 3 Oct. 1136 (ib. xiii. 27). Joined by Stephen the following spring, he hastened back with him to England in Dec. 1137, at the rumour of rebellion (ib. xiii. 32), but was again despatched by him to Normandy in May 1138, to suppress his opponents (ib. xiii. 37). Returning to England with his brother, before the end of the year, they continued to act as Stephen's chief advisers, and headed the opposition to the bishop of Salisbury and his nephews (Gest. Steph.). At the council of Oxford (June 1139) matters came to a crisis, and, in a riot between the followers of the respective parties, the bishops were seized by the two earls, and imprisoned, at their advice, by Stephen (Ord. Vit. xiii. 40; Gest. Steph.). This gave the signal for the civil war (Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 326), in which the earl, active on Stephen's side, was rewarded by him with a grant of Worcester (and, it is said, the earldom) towards the close of 1139. At the battle of Lincoln (2 Feb. 1141) he was one of Stephen's commanders, but fled at the first onset, and left him to his fate (Ord. Vit. xiii. 42; Gest. Steph.; Hen. Hunt., 270; Gervase, i. 116), and though he hastened to assure the queen that he would be faithful to the captured king (ib.), he assisted Geoffrey of Anjou to besiege Rouen in 1143. In 1145 he went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Chron. Norm.), having (as count of Meulan) entrusted his lordship of Worcester to his brother, the earl of Leicester, and to the sheriff (App. 5th Report Hist. MSS. p. 301). On his return, he adhered to the empress, and held Worcester against Stephen in 1150. The king took the town, but not the castle (Hen. Hunt. 282), which he again attacked in 1152. He erected two forts to block it up, but was treacherously induced to destroy them by the count's brother (Gervase, i. 148). He would seem to have subsequently withdrawn to Normandy, where he was captured by his nephew, Robert de Montfort, who imprisoned him at Orbec till he restored to him his fief of Montfort (Chron. Norm.). He reappears in attendance on the court early in 1157, and in May 1160 is one of the witnesses to the treaty between Henry II and Louis. Henry took his castles into his own hands about January 1161, but he is not again mentioned. He died in 1166, being buried on 9 April. His son, Robert, count of Meulan (d. 1181), joined in Prince Henry's rebellion against his father, Henry II, in 1173 (Bened. Abb. i. 45), and was father of Robert, count of Meulan, excommunicated as a member of John's faction in 1191 (Rog. Hov.). Sources: Orderic Vitalis, lib. xi. xii. Gervase of Canterbury and Henry of Huntingdon (Rolls series) Gesta Stephani (Eng. Hist. Soc.), pp. 47, 49 Chronica Normanniæ Lyttelton's Henry II (1767) vol. i. Nichols's History of Leicester (1795) pp. 23-4 Green's History of Worcester, pp. 255-6 Eyton's Court and Itinerary of Henry II. Contributor: J. H. R. [John Horace Round] Published: 1885 | de Beaumont, Waleran 1st and last Earl of Worcester (I4211)
|
| 1611 | Waleran II (or Walram II) (c. 1085-1139), called Paganus meaning "the Pagan", probably due to a late baptism, was the Duke of Limburg and Count of Arlon from his father's death in about 1119 until his own twenty years later. He was given the Duchy of Lower Lorraine by Lothair of Supplinburg after the latter's accession as King of Germany in 1125. He was the son of Henry, Duke of Lower Lorraine (1101-1106), and Adelaide of Pottenstein. Henry had been forced to yield the duchy to Godfrey I of Leuven on Henry V's succession, but had kept the ducal title. With the coming of Lothair, Godfrey was forced to yield it to Waleran. Godfrey was not willing to do so and war broke out, especially over disputes about authority over the abbey of Sint-Truiden. In 1129, Waleran and the bishop of Liège, Alexandre de Juliers, demolished Godfrey's forces at Wilde. His rule was actual from there on. Though Waleran and Godfrey eventually reconciled, Godfrey maintained, as Henry had, the ducal title. In 1129, Waleran was made forester of Duisbourg. In 1139, Lothair died and Waleran supported Conrad of Hohenstaufen, who was elected. He remained faithful to the new king until his death shortly thereafter. He was succeeded by Godfrey II of Leuven in Lorraine. | Waleran Duke of Lower Lorraine (I5441)
|
| 1612 | Walter de Gloucester (also Walter FitzRoger or Walter de Pitres) (1065-1129) was an early Norman official of the King of England during the early years of the Norman conquest of the South Welsh Marches. Lineage He was the only son of Roger de Pitres and his wife, Eunice de Balun. Titles Walter de Gloucester was hereditary High Sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1097 and from 1104 to 1121 and lived in Gloucester Castle of which he was constable, making improvements to this early fortification. In 1121 he retired to become a monk at Llantony Abbey and was succeeded by his son Miles. Family He was married to Bertha, a relative of Hamelin de Balun. They were the parents of Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford and a daughter, Matilda, who married a Richard Fitz Pons. | of Gloucester, Walter (I1627)
|
| 1613 | Walter de Lacy (c. 1172 - 1241) was Lord of Meath in Ireland and Ludlow in Shropshire in the Welsh Marches. He was the eldest son of Hugh de Lacy, a leading Cambro-Norman baron in the Norman invasion of Ireland. Life With his father he built Trim Castle (Irish: 'Caisletheán Bhaile Atha Troim) in Trim, County Meath. During the revolt of Prince John Lackland, Lord of Ireland, against his brother, King Richard the Lionheart, in 1193-94, Walter joined with John de Courcy to support Richard. Walter apprehended some knights loyal to John along with Peter Pipard, John's justiciar in Ireland. Walter did homage to Richard for his lands in Ireland in 1194, receiving his lordship of Meath. After mounting the throne of England in 1199, John wrote to his justiciar in Ireland to complain that de Courcy and de Lacy had destroyed John's land of Ireland. Walter had made John his enemy. In 1203, John granted custody of the city of Limerick to Walter's father-in-law, William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber. As de Braose was an absentee, Walter served as de Braose's deputy in Limerick. In 1206-07, Walter became involved in a conflict with Meiler Fitzhenry, Justiciar of Ireland, and Walter's feudal tenants for lands in Meath; Meiler had seized Limerick. King John summoned Walter to appear before him in England in April, 1207. After Walter's brother Hugh de Lacy, 1st Earl of Ulster, had taken Meiler FitzHenry prisoner, John in March, 1208 acquiesced in giving Walter a new charter for his lands in Meath. Upon his return to Ireland later in 1208, Walter may have acted as Justiciar of Ireland in lieu of the deposed Meiler fitz Henry. By this time, John had begun his infamous persecution of Walter's father-in-law, de Braose, who fled to Ireland. On 20 June 1210, King John landed in Crook, now in Co. Waterford, with his feudal levy and a force of Flemish mercenaries; John marched north through Leinster. When John reached Dublin on 27 or 28 June, Walter attempted to throw himself on John's mercy, sending five of his tenants to Dublin to place his lands in Meath back in the king's hand, and disclaiming any attempt to shelter his brother Hugh from John's wrath. John attacked eastern Meath, and was joined by 400 of Walter's deserting followers. John would hold Walter's lands in Meath for five years. In 1211 Walter erected the castle on Turbet Island in the abortive Anglo-Norman attempt to gain control of West Ulster. Attempting to secure support in Ireland against the brewing revolt that would lead to Magna Carta, John began negotiations to restore Walter to his lands in Meath in the summer of 1215. Walter was Sheriff of Herefordshire from 1218 to 1222. In 1230 he joined with Geoffrey de Marisco and Richard Mór de Burgh to subdue Aedh mac Ruaidri Ó Conchobair, King of Connacht. He was a benefactor to the abbeys of Lanthony and Craswall (Herefordshire) and also founded the abbey of Beaubec in Ireland. On his death his estate was divided between his granddaughters Margery and Maud. Ancestry Family, Marriage and Issue Brother of Hugh de Lacy, 1st Earl of Ulster Husband of Margaret de Braose, daughter of William de Braose and Maud de St. Valery. His son Gilbert de Lacy of Ewyas Harold, Herefordshire was taken hostage for his father in August 1215, and died before 25 December 1230. Gilbert married Isabel Bigod, daughter of Sir Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk (Magna Charta Surety) & Maud Marshal. They had 1 son and 2 daughters: Walter de Lacy married Rohese Le Boteler but had no issue. Walter died between 1238 and 1241. Margery (Margaret) de Lacy married Sir John de Verdun, Lord of Westmeath, son of Theobald le Boteler and Rohese de Verdun. Maud de Lacy married Sir Geoffrey de Geneville, Lord Geneville, Justiciar of Ireland, son of Simon de Joinville, Seneschal of Champagne, & Beatrix of Burgundy. His daughter Petronilla de Lacy married Sir Ralph VI de Toeni, Lord of Flamstead, son of Sir Roger IV de Toeni, Lord of Flamstead & Constance de Beaumont. His daughter Egidia de Lacy (also called Gille) married Richard Mor de Burgh Lord of Connaught and Strathearn. Together they had many notable descendants, including Elizabeth de Burgh, Catherine Parr, Margaret de Clare, the Earls of Ormond, King Edward IV of England, King Richard III of England, and many other British monarchs including Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms. They are also the ancestors of both Anne Boleyn and King Henry VIII of England, the parents of Elizabeth I. Through the Royal family of the United Kingdom and its predecessors states, and especially through Queen Victoria they became the ancestors of Royal houses all over Europe. | de Lacy, Walter Lord of Meath (I942)
|
| 1614 | Walter de Lacy (died 27 March 1085) was a Norman nobleman who came to England after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. He received lands in Herefordshire and Shropshire, and served King William I of England by leading military forces during 1075. He died in 1085 and one son inherited his lands. Another son became an abbot. Early life Walter was originally from Lassy, in Normandy. He had a brother, Ilbert de Lacy. Ilbert was the ancestor of the de Lacy family of Pontefract. Both Walter and Ilbert jointly held the Norman lands that were held of the Bishop of Bayeux. Career in England Walter was given the lordship of Weobley in Herefordshire after the Conquest. He is already attested in the Welsh Marches by 1069, when he is recorded stopping a Welsh attack and then raiding into Wales in retribution. Walter and Ilbert may have come to England in the household of Odo of Bayeux, the Bishop of Bayeux and half-brother of King William the Conqueror. Although some historians, such as W. E. Wrightman, have argued that Walter was a follower of William fitzOsbern, others, including C. P. Lewis and K. S. B. Keats-Rohan, have argued that Walter was an independent agent in England. By the time of Walter's death, he held a block of lands in Herefordshire along the border with Wales. Another group of lands was centered on Ludlow in Shropshire. These two groupings of lands allowed Walter to help defend the border of England against Welsh raids. Walter also had other lands in Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, and Oxfordshire. Walter kept a large number of his manors in demesne, managing them directly rather than giving them as fiefs to his knightly followers. Some of these lands in Hereford, including Holme Lacy, were held of the Bishop of Hereford through feudal tenure. In total, Domesday Book records Walter's lands as being worth £423 in income per year and as comprising 163 manors in 7 different counties. He was one of 21 individuals with land valued at more than £400 at the time of the survey. In 1075, Walter was one of the leaders of the force that prevented Roger de Breteuil from joining up with the other rebels during the Revolt of the Earls. Walter had joined forces with Wulfstan the Bishop of Worcester, Æthelwig the Abbot of Evesham Abbey, and Urse d'Abetot the Sheriff of Worcester. Family and death Walter married Emma or Emmelina and they had three sons - Roger, Hugh and Walter. Roger was the heir to Weobley and Walter became Abbot of Gloucester Abbey. Occasionally the elder Walter is claimed to have married twice - once to Emma and once to an Ermeline, but this is probably a confusion of the variations of Emma's name. Walter and Emma also had a daughter who became a nun at St Mary's Abbey, Winchester. A niece was married to Ansfrid de Cormeilles. Considerable confusion exists about Sybil, the wife of Pain fitzJohn. C. P. Lewis names her as the daughter of Walter, but W. E. Wrightman calls her the daughter of Hugh, Walter's son. Yet another pedigree has her as the daughter of Agnes, the daughter of Walter. In this rendition, favoured by Bruce Coplestone-Crow, Agnes was married to Geoffrey Talbot. The elder Walter died on 27 March 1085, falling off some scaffolding at Saint Guthlac's Priory when he was inspecting the progress of the building at that monastery. He was buried in the chapter house at Gloucester Abbey. He was a benefactor to Gloucester Abbey, as well as Saint Guthlac's. | de Lacy, Walter (I5594)
|
| 1615 | Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville was the son of Osborn de Bolebec and Aveline de Crepon. He married Agnes Ermentrude Fleitel, daughter of Gerald Fleitel. He held the office of Justiciar of England. He gained the title of Lord of Longueville [Normandy]. In 1066 he accompanied William the Conquerer to England. He received grants of 107 Lordships, 48 in Buckinghamshire. Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville in Normandy (a.k.a. 'Giffard of Barbastre'), was a Norman baron, a Tenant-in-chief in England, a Christian knight who fought against the Saracens in Spain during the Reconquista and one of the known Companions of William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Life Walter was the son Osborne de Bolbec, Lord of Longueville and Avelina, sister of Gunnora, Duchess of Normandy. As such he was a cousin of William the Conqueror. From the mid 1040s Walter's name appears among the loyal supporters of William the Conqueror. Walter was at the Battle of Mortemer and was among the Norman barons who surprised and defeated Counts Odo and Renaud leading the French contingent attacking Normandy from the east. In particular, he and another great vassal Robert of Eu encountered Odo's army encamped in the villiage of Mortemer with no sentries and the soldiers were drunk. The Normans attacked the French in their sleep, most being either killed or taken prisoner. While Odo himself escaped, when King Henry I learned of the fate of his brother Odo's army he promptly withdrew his remaining forces and left Normandy. In 1054 Walter was in charge of maintaining the siege of Arques castle, against William of Talou, who had rebelled against the Conqueror. Like many other Norman and French knights during the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, Walter served as a Christian knight in Spain (c. 1064-65) against the Saracens. His epithet le Barbastre was earned when he took part in the Siege of Barbastro, an undertaking sanctioned by Pope Alexander II against the Moors in 1064, one of the more famous exploits of that time. By the time of the Conquest, Walter had returned to Normandy bearing a gift of the King of Spain for Duke William, a magnificent war-horse. The same Spanish war-horse duke William called for on the morning of the Battle of Hastings. The Spanish king in question was in all probibility Sancho RamÃrez of Aragon (1063-94) who was known for making friends and recruiting knights and soldiers from Northern France. Walter was also one of the first, if not the first in England to go on pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela, which he did after the siege of Barbastro and before returning to Normandy. In early January of 1066, after Duke William received news of the crowning of Harold Godwinson as king of England, he called together a meeting that included six of his key magnates, Walter Giffard being one of them. After telling them of his plan to invade England and take the crown they all advised him they supported him fully but suggested he call a meeting of all his vassals, which William did. In the preparation stage for the Battle of Hastings, Walter was one of the Norman magnates who provided ships for William's invasion fleet, in his case he provided thirty. Walter was one of two who, having been offered the privilege of carrying William's standard in the battle, respectfully refused. Although by this time an older warrior with white hair, he wanted both hands free to fight. As a reward for his participation, Walter was granted 107 lordships, 48 of which were in Buckingham. The date of his death is not recorded, but his son Walter succeeded him before 1085. Family Walter was married to Ermengarde, daughter of Gerard Flaitel. Walter and Ermengarde were the parents of: Walter Giffard, 1st Earl of Buckingham. William Giffard, Bishop of Winchester. Rohese Giffard (d. aft. 1113), she married Richard fitz Gilbert, Lord of Clare. | Giffard, Walter Lord of Longueville (I168)
|
| 1616 | Walter I de Clifford (1113-1190) was an Anglo-Norman marcher lord of Bronllys Castle on the Welsh border, and Clifford Castle (from the 1130s), in Herefordshire. He is now best known for his daughter, Rosamund Clifford, with Margaret de Toeni, daughter of Ralph de Toeni. He was the son of Richard FitzPons and Matilda, who the sister of Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford. Walter's other children were: Walter II de Clifford Gilbert Richard Amicia, married Osbern fitz Hugh of Richards Castle Lucia, married Hugh de Say of Clun Castle Rosamund Clifford, known as "the fair Rosamund", the mistress of King Henry II. | de Clifford, Walter FitzRichard FitzPons Baron Clifford (I5779)
|
| 1617 | Waltheof, 4th Lord of Bamburgh, Earl of Bernicia (a 1006). | Earl Of Northumberland, Waltheof (I1879)
|
| 1618 | Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria and Huntingdon was the son of Siward Digera, Earl of Northumberland and Elfleda. He married Judith of Lens, daughter of Lambert II de Boulogne, Comte de Lens and Adeliza, Countess of Aumale, circa 1070. He died on 31 May 1076, execution. Waltheof (1050 - 31 May 1076), 1st Earl of the Honour of Huntingdon and Northampton and last of the Anglo-Saxon earls was the only English aristocrat to be executed during the reign of William I. Early life Waltheof was the second son of Siward, Earl of Northumbria. His mother was Aelfflaed, daughter of Ealdred, Earl of Bernicia, son of Uhtred, Earl of Northumbria. In 1054, Waltheof’s brother, Osbearn, who was much older than he, was killed in battle, making Waltheof his father’s heir. Siward himself died in 1055, and Waltheof being far too young to succeed as Earl of Northumbria, King Edward appointed Tostig Godwinson to the earldom. He was said to be devout and charitable and was probably educated for a monastic life. In fact around 1065 he became an earl, governing Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire. Following the Battle of Hastings he submitted to William and was allowed to keep his pre-Conquest title and possessions. He remained at William’s court until 1068. Family and children In 1070 Waltheof married Judith of Lens, daughter of Lambert II, Count of Lens and Adelaide of Normandy, Countess of Aumale. They had three children, the eldest of whom, Maud, brought the earldom of Huntingdon to her second husband, David I of Scotland, and another, Adelise, married the Anglo-Norman noble Raoul III of Tosny. Their son Uchtred of Tynedale married Bethoc; daughter of Donald III, King of Scotland. One of Waltheof's grandsons was Waltheof (d. 1159), abbot of Melrose. First revolt When Sweyn II invaded Northern England in 1069, Waltheof and Edgar Ætheling joined the Danes and took part in the attack on York. He would again make a fresh submission to William after the departure of the invaders in 1070. He was restored to his earldom, and went on to marry William's niece, Judith of Lens. In 1072, he was appointed Earl of Northampton. The Domesday Book mentions Waltheof ("Walleff"); "'In Hallam ("Halun"), one manor with its sixteen hamlets, there are twenty-nine carucates [~14 km²] to be taxed. There Earl Waltheof had an "Aula" [hall or court]. There may have been about twenty ploughs. This land Roger de Busli holds of the Countess Judith." (Hallam, or Hallamshire, is now part of the city of Sheffield) In 1072, William expelled Gospatric from the earldom of Northumbria. Gospatric was Waltheof’s cousin and had taken part in the attack on York with him, but like Waltheof, had been pardoned by William. Gospatric fled into exile and William appointed Waltheof as the new earl. Waltheof had many enemies in the north. Amongst them were members of a family who had killed Waltheof’s maternal great-grandfather, Uchtred the Bold, and his grandfather Ealdred. This was part of a long-running blood feud. In 1074, Waltheof moved against the family by sending his retainers to ambush them, succeeding in killing the two eldest of four brothers. Second revolt and death In 1075 Waltheof joined the Revolt of the Earls against William. His motives for taking part in the revolt are unclear, as is the depth of his involvement. However he repented, confessing his guilt first to Archbishop Lanfranc and then in person to William, who was at the time in Normandy. He returned to England with William but was arrested, brought twice before the king's court and sentenced to death. He spent almost a year in confinement before being beheaded on May 31, 1076 at St. Giles's Hill, near Winchester. He was said to have spent the months of his captivity in prayer and fasting. Many people believed in his innocence and were surprised when the execution was carried out. His body was initially thrown in a ditch, but was later retrieved and was buried in the chapter house of Croyland Abbey. Cult of martyrdom In 1092, after a fire in the chapter house, the abbot had Waltheof’s body moved to a prominent place in the abbey church. When the coffin was opened, it is reported that the corpse was found to be intact with the severed head re-joined to the trunk. This was regarded as a miracle, and the abbey, which had a financial interest in the matter began to publicise it. As a result, pilgrims began to visit Waltheof’s tomb. After a few years healing miracles were reputed to occur in the vicinity of Waltheof’s tomb, often involving the restoration of the pilgrim’s lost sight. | Waltheof Earl of Northumbria and Huntingdon (I1820)
|
| 1619 | Warinus of Poitiers (Warin, Guerin, Gerinus) (d. 677) is the Franco-Burgundian Count of Poitiers and Count of Paris who became Saint Warinus, Martyr of the Franks. He is the son of Saint Sigrada of Sainte-Marie de Soissons and the son of brother of Saint Leodegarius. He is also the father of Saint Leudwinus. In 676 Warinus was stoned to death near Arras because of a feud between his brother, Leodegarius, and Ebroin, the Frankish Mayor of the Palace of Neustria. Early Life Warinus was born at Autun, Saone-et-Loire, Burgundy. He is the son of Bodilon, Count of Poitiers and Sigrada of Alsace and Sainte-Marie de Soissons. Saint Leodegarius was his brother. As a nobleman he spent his childhood at the court of Clotaire II. In he married Gunza von Treves, a Frankish noblewoman in France. His wife came from an influential Frankish family. She was the sister of Saint Basinus of Treves. They had three children: Doda of Poitiers, (circa b. 659 - circa d.678) Leudwinus, Count of Poitier (b. 660 - d. 722) Grimgert, Count of Paris (circa b.667) Death In 677 Warinus was stoned to death near Arras because of a feud between his brother, Leodegarius, and Ebroin, the Frankish Mayor of the Palace of Neustria. | Saint Warinus (I5082)
|
| 1620 | Warwickshire Anglican Registers, Warwick, England: Warwickshire County Record Office | Source (S496)
|
| 1621 | Was around in the reign of King Edward the 3rd. Had 6 children. Three daughters. | Middleton, Thomas (I1438)
|
| 1622 | Was born and raised in Victoria. His grandfather, Charles Bosdet, was an award winning home builder and many of his homes are still standing around Victoria. His father, John Davis Bosdet, was an appraiser and realtor and opened his own brokerage, JD Bosdet Ltd in Victoria in 1972. He also served as a Director of the Victoria Real Estate Board. Much of his family are still in the Greater Victoria area. He has passions for Mountaineering, Mountain and Road Biking, Cooking, Woodworking, Travel, Scuba Diving. | Bosdet, Neil (I598)
|
| 1623 | Was called De NovaVilla, or De Neuville from his life in Neuville sur Tocque in the department of the Orne, arrondissement of Argenton, and the canton of Grace. A cousin of William the Conqueror on his maternal side and he left four sons; Gilbert, Robert, Richard and Ralph. From Gilbert De Nevill descends the houses of Westmoreland, Warwick, Latimer and Abergavenny. | de Novilla, Richard "Teutonicus" (I5705)
|
| 1624 | Was cremated | Woods, Rosetta (I636)
|
| 1625 | Washington, Washington Territorial Census Rolls, 1857-1892, Olympia, Washington: Washington State Archives | Source (S38)
|
| 1626 | Welsh princess. | verch Gruffydd, Nesta (I448)
|
| 1627 | Werner V, count in the Nahegau, Speyergau and Wormsgau (c. 899 - c. 935) is the first definite progenitor of the Salian Dynasty of German kings. His father was Count Werner IV and his mother was a sister of king Conrad I of Germany. He married Hicha of Swabia, daughter of Burchard II, Duke of Swabia and Regilinde of Swabia. Their only son was Conrad the Red. Further reading Andreas Thiele: Erzählende genealogische Stammtafeln zur europäischen Geschichte Band I, Teilband 1, 1993 Rüdiger E. Barth: Der Herzog in Lotharingien im 10. Jahrhundert. 1990 Detlev Schwennicke: Europäische Stammtafeln Neue Folge Band I. 1, 1998 | V Count of the Nahegau, Speyergau, and Wormsgau, Werner (I5370)
|
| 1628 | When registering the birth (1842) of John George, signed with a cross. Place of residence was then given in the Coin Tourgis Vingtaine of St Lawrence. He was a stone mason. | Bosdet, Jean (I3456)
|
| 1629 | Widower. | Family F1314
|
| 1630 | Will registered 9 Sept 1881: Elizabeth Bosdet fille de Jean Philippe native of St Pierre. Sophie de Carteret sister-in-law. Henry de Carteret Bosdet fils James nephew. Sister Susanne Elizabeth Bosdet. | Bosdet, Elizabeth (I669)
|
| 1631 | William "the Younger" Peverel (c. 1080-1155) was the son of William Peverel. He lived in Nottingham, England. He married Avicia de Lancaster (1088 - c. 1150) in La Marche, Normandy, France. She was the daughter of Roger "The Poitevin" Montgomery and Countess Almodis of La Marche. In 1114, she bore a daughter, Margaret Peverel. Another member of his family, Maude Peverel (a sister or daughter) was - by 1120 - the first wife of Robert fitz Martin. William inherited the Honour of Peverel. He was a principal supporter of King Stephen, and a commander in the Battle of the Standard. He was captured at The Battle of Lincoln. King Henry II dispossessed William of the Honour, for conspiring to poison the Earl of Chester - though historians speculate that the King wished to punish him for his 'wickedness and treason' in supporting King Stephen. The Earl died before he took possession of the Honour, and it stayed in the Crown for about a half century. | Peverel, William (I4373)
|
| 1632 | William and Henri were both sons of Walkeline de Ferrers (d.c. 1040) Seigneur of Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire, Eure in upper Normandy. | de Ferrieres, Walchelinde (I901)
|
| 1633 | William Brewer (or Briwere) (died 1226) was a prominent administrator and justice in England during the reigns of Richard I, King John, and Henry III. He was also notable as a founder of a number of religious institutions. Life William Brewer's ancestry is unclear, but he was probably the son of Henry Brewer and the grandson of William Brewer, forester of Bere, who founded the nunnery of Polsloe in Exeter. William began his own career as forester of Bere, which appears to have been a hereditary title, and by 1179 had been appointed High Sheriff of Devon. Under Richard I he was one of the justiciars appointed to run the country while the king was on crusade. He was present at Worms in 1193, to aid in the negotiations for Richard's ransom. It was around this time that Brewer began his career at the Exchequer, where he was to sit until the reign of Henry III. Under King John William was one of the most active figures in government, next to Henry Marshal and Geoffrey fitz Peter in terms of the number of royal charters he witnessed. In this period, he was appointed High Sheriff of Berkshire, Cornwall, Devon, Hampshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset and High Sheriff of Dorset, Sussex and Wiltshire. He was often unpopular with the people of his counties, and the men of Cornwall, Somerset, and Dorset paid money to the king for his removal. Brewer was adept at acquiring lands, and built himself a substantial barony from relatively humble beginnings. By 1219 he was assessed for scutage on over sixty knights' fees scattered over several shires. He was able to found and endow three monasteries: Torre Abbey in Devon in 1196, Mottisfont Abbey in Hampshire in 1201, and Dunkeswell Abbey in Devon in the same year. In 1224 he retired from the world to live as a Cistercian monk at Dunkeswell, where he was buried with his wife before the high altar on his death in 1226. Family and children He married Beatrice de Valle (d. before 1220), previously the mistress of Reginald de Dunstanville, Earl of Cornwall (d. 1175) and mother of Henry fitz Count (d. 1221), and they had several children, including: William Brewer (d. 1232), married Joan, daughter of William de Redvers, Earl of Devon. Richard Brewer (d. 1215). Graecia, married Reginald de Braose. Margaret, married three times, lastly to Geoffrey de Saye William Brewer, Bishop of Exeter, was one of Brewer's nephews. | Brieguerre, William (I3594)
|
| 1634 | William Comyn was one of four sons (and three daughters) of Richard Comyn, Justiciar of Lothian and Hextilda of Tynedale. He was born in Scotland, in Altyre, Moray in 1163 and died in Buchan in 1233 where he is buried in Deer Abbey. He was Lord of Badenoch and was earl-consort of Buchan. William made his fortune in the service of king William I of Scotland fighting the Meic Uilleim in the north. William witnesses no less than 88 charters of the king. William was sheriff of Forfar (1195-1211), Justiciar of Scotia (1205-33) and warden of Moray (1211-2). Between 1199 and 1200, William was sent to England to discuss important matters on King William's behalf with the new king, John. William was appointed to the prestigious office of Justiciar of Scotia, the most senior royal office in the kingdom, in 1205. Between 1211 and 1212, William, as Warden of Moray (or Guardian of Moray) fought against the insurgency of Gofraid mac Domnaill (of the Meic Uilleim family), who William beheaded in Kincardine in 1213.[1] Upon finally destroying the Meic Uilleim's in 1229, he was given the Lordship of Badenoch and the lands it controlled. From an unknown date, William held the title Lord of Kilbride. He helped oversee the construction of St Mungo's Cathedral in Glasgow and after his death, Marjory continued his work there. Earl of Buchan During his period as Warden of Moray, Comyn was so successful, it may have been the reason he received the hand of Marjory (aka. Margaret), Countess of Buchan, sometime between 1209-1212. Her father Fergus, Earl of Buchan, had no male heirs and so in marrying his daughter to William he ensured a suitable line for his titles before his death. Dying sometime around 1214 (perhaps earlier) William took over the management of the mormaerdom (earldom) of Bucham, by right of his wife. Family tree William (is believed to have) had six children through his first wife Sarah Fitzhugh and eight through Marjory, Countess of Buchan. The two branches would be associated with the Lordship of Badenoch through his first wife and the Earldom of Buchan through the second. For the historian Alan Young, William's life, and particularly his marriage to the Countess of Buchan, marks the beginning of the "Comyn century". NB. Children are ranked according to either accounts showing a specific rank in the order of Williams children's birth or according to the earliest available date the child was thought to have been born. father Richard Comyn (b.c.1115-1123 d.c.1179); mother Hextilda of Tynedale (aka. Hextilda FitzUchtred or Hextilda FitzWaldeve) (b.1112-1122 d.c. 1149-1189). Hextilda's first husband was Malcolm, 2nd Earl of Atholl, making their son Henry, 3rd Earl of Atholl, William Comyn's half-brother. first wife married 1193: Sarah Fitzhugh (aka. Sarah filia Roberti) (b.1155-1160 d.c.1204) 1. Richard (b.c.1190-1194 d.c.1244-1249); married to unknown wife; father of John I Comyn, Lord of Badenoch (b.c.1220 d.c.1277) 2. Jardine Comyn, Lord of Inverallochy (b. during or before 1190) 3. Walter, Lord of Badenoch (b.1190 d.c.1258) married Isabella, Countess of Menteith 4. Johanna (aka. Jean) (b.c.1198 d.c.1274); married c.1220: Uilleam I, Earl of Ross (aka. William de Ross) (b.c.1194-1214 d.1274) 5. John Comyn, jure uxoris Earl of Angus (d.1242); married (c.1242); Matilda, Countess of Angus (aka. Maud) (b.c.1222, d.1261) 6. David Comyn, Lord of Kilbride (d.1247); married Isabel de Valoigne (d.1253) second wife married c.1209-1212: Marjory (aka. Margaret), Countess of Buchan (aka. Margaret Colhan of Buchan) (b.c.1184 d.c.1243-1244) 1. Idonea (aka. Idoine) (b.c.1215-1221); married 1237: Gilbert de Haya of Erroll (aka. Gilbert de la Hay) (d.1262) 2. Alexander, Earl of Buchan (b.c.1217 d.c.1289-1290); married: Elizabetha de Quincy (aka. Isabel) (b.1220 d.1282) 3. William (b.c.1217) 4. Margaret (b.c. 1218-1230); married Sir John de Keith, Marischal of Scotland (b.1212 d.1270) 5. Fergus (b.c.1219-1228 d.); married 1249: unknown wife; father of Margaret Comyn (b.c.1270) 6. Elizabeth (b.c. 1223 d.1267); married: Uilleam, Earl of Mar (d.1281) 7. Agnes (b.c.1225); married 1262: Sir Philip de Meldrum, Justiciar of Scotia (aka. Philip de Fedarg or Philip de Melgarum) | Comyn, William Lord of Badenoch (I4224)
|
| 1635 | William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber (fl. 1135-1179) was a 12th-century Marcher lord who secured a foundation for the dominant position later held by the Braose family in the Welsh Marches. In addition to the family's English holdings in Sussex and Devon, William had inherited Radnor and Builth, in Wales, from his father Philip. By his marriage he increased the Braose Welsh holdings to include Brecon and Abergavenny. William remained loyal to King Stephen during the 12th century period of anarchy. He became a trusted royal servant during the subsequent reign of Henry II, accompanying the king on campaigns in France and Ireland. He served as sheriff of Herefordshire from 1173 until 1175. The family's power reached its peak under his son William during the reigns of King Richard I and King John. Lands and family William was the eldest son of Philip de Braose, lord of Bramber. His mother was Aenor, daughter of Juhel of Totnes. He was the third in the line of the Anglo-Norman Braose family founded by his grandfather, the first William de Braose. After his father died in the 1130s William inherited lordships, land and castles in Sussex, with his caput at Bramber. He also held Totnes in Devon and Radnor and Builth in the Welsh Marches. He confirmed the grants of his father and grandfather to the abbey of St Florent in Anjou and made further grants to the abbey's dependent priory at Sele in Sussex. In about 1155, he also inherited through his mother's family one half of the honour of Barnstaple in Devon, paying a fee of 1000 marks for the privilege. William became an internationally recognised figure. When Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury was asked by Pope Adrian IV to inquire into the background of a certain Walter, canon of St Ruf, his reply, dated to 1154/9 read: The facts which you demand need but little enquiry; for they shine so brightly in themselves that they cannot be hid; so great is the brilliance of his noble birth and the glory of all his kin. For Walter, as we know for a fact, was the son of a distinguished knight and born of a noble mother in lawful wedlock, and he is closely related by blood to the noble William de Braose. William had married Bertha, daughter of Miles of Gloucester and Sibyl de Neufmarché, by 1150. When each of Bertha's four brothers died leaving no issue, William's marriage became unexpectedly valuable. He gained control of the lordships of Brecon and Abergavenny after 1166 when the last brother died. These additional land holdings greatly expanded the territorial power and income of the Braose family. They now held a vast block of territory in the Welsh Marches as well as their extensive interests in Sussex and Devon. William's daughters were able to make good marriages, notably Sibyl to William de Ferrers, Earl of Derby. Maud was married to John de Brompton of Shropshire. William's son and heir, another William de Braose, became a major player in national politics under King John. Royal service Empress Maud, the only legitimate living child of Henry I, landed in England in 1139 in an attempt to press her claim to the monarchy. She was soon besieged by King Stephen's forces at Arundel castle. Stephen allowed Maud a safe conduct to Bristol and provided her with an escort, which included William de Braose, suggesting that he was an adherent of King Stephen. William was present as a witness when three charters were issued by Stephen at Lewes dated to the years 1148-53, therefore it appears that he remained loyal to the king until the Treaty of Wallingford ended the hostilities. William was in Sussex in 1153, but he followed Duke Henry, soon to become King Henry II, to Normandy in 1154. William was frequently with the new king. He was one of the military leaders who supported Henry at Rhuddlan in 1157. He witnessed one of the king's charters at Romsey in 1158, and he is recorded at the king's court in Wiltshire in 1164 when the Constitutions of Clarendon were enacted. He accompanied the king on expedition to France, witnessing at Leons in 1161 and Chinon in 1162. William is also documented on the Irish campaign at Dublin in 1171 and Wexford 1172. William's younger brother, Philip, also accompanied the king to Ireland, and remained with the garrison at Wexford. In 1177 Philip was granted the kingdom of Limerick by Henry but failed to take possession after the citizens set fire to the town. When Henry was facing war with his sons in 1173, William was appointed as sheriff of Herefordshire at Easter. He maintained the King's interests in Herefordshire until 1175. Later life and death King Henry withdrew his favour from the family after William's son organised the murder of Seisyll ap Dyfnwal and other Welsh princes at Abergavenny in 1176. There is little subsequent record of William in public life, and it is likely that he retired to his estates in Sussex. William died after 1179 and was succeeded by his son, William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber, who gained the favour of both King Richard I and King John and became a dominant force in the Welsh Marches during their reigns. | de Braose, William 3rd Lord of Bramber (I1117)
|
| 1636 | William de Burgh (circa 1160 - 1206) was the founder of the de Burgh/Burke/Bourke dynasty in Ireland. His family were in England for a while and claimed to descend from the French noble Counts of Rethel and Baldwin II of Jerusalem, however their genealogists may have fabricated this. In Ireland He arrived in Ireland in 1185 and was closely associated with Prince John. King Henry II of England appointed him Governor of Limerick and granted him vast estates in Leinster and Munster. De Burgh's castles at Tibberaghny (co Kilkenny) Kilsheelan, Ardpatrick and Kilfeacle were used to protect King John's northern borders of Waterford and Lismore and his castles at Carrigogunnell and Castelconnell were used to protect Limerick. He was Seneschal of Munster (Royal Governor) from 1201 to 1203. Marriage and Alliance Sometime in the 1190s, William allied with the King of Thomond, either Domnall Mór Ua Briain, King of Thomond (died 1194) or his son Murtogh, and married one of his daughters. This alliance probably took place during the reign of Murtough, as up to the time of his death Donal had been at war with the Normans. At any rate no more wars are recorded between the two sides for the rest of the decade. According to the Annals of Inisfallen, in 1201 William and the sons of Domnall Mór led a major joint military expedition into Desmond, slaying AmlaÃb Ua Donnabáin among others. From 1199 to 1202 de Burgh led military campaigns in Desmond with the aid of the Ó Briain. Success in the west and south allowed de Burgh to conquer the Kingdom of Connacht, which although he had been granted probably before 1195, he had never occupied. Cathal Crobhdearg Ua Conchobair, King of Connacht, fought a successful counter-attack against the Anglo-Norman castles in Munster, including de Burgh's castle of Castleconnell. Further fighting led to loss of three castles and property, all of which was eventually retrieved with the exception of much of Connacht. Connacht In 1200, "Cathal Crobhdearg Ua Conchobair went into Munster, to the son of Mac Carthy and William de Burgh to solicit their aid." This marked the start of de Burgh's interest in the province. King Cathal Crobderg Ua Conchobair (reigned 1190-1224) faced much opposition, mainly from within his own family and wished to engage de Burgh's aid to help secure his position. The following year William and Ua Conchobair led an army from Limerick to Tuam and finally to Boyle. Ua Conchobair's rival, Cathal Carragh Ua Conchobair marched at the head of his army to give them battle but was killed in a combined Burke/Ua Conchobair onslaught after a week of skirmishing between the two sides. William and Ua Conchobair then travelled to Iar Connacht and stayed at Cong for Easter. Here, William and the sons of Rory O'Flaherty conspired to kill Ua Conchobair but the plot was foiled, apparently by holy oaths they were made to swear by the local Coarb family. However, when de Burgh demanded payment for himself and his retinue, battle finally broke out with over seven hundred of de Burgh's followers said to have been killed. William, however, managed to return to Limerick. The following year in 1202, William returned and took revenge for his army that was destroyed a year early. He took the title “Lord of Connacht†in 1203. Death He died in 1206 and was interred at the Augustinian Priory of Athassell Abbey, Golden, County Tipperary, Munster, Ireland, which he had founded. The Annals of the Four Masters recorded his passing thus: "William Burke plundered Connacht, as well churches as territories; but God and the saints took vengeance on him for that; for he died of a singular disease, too shameful to be described." Family The identity of William's wife is uncertain. A late medieval genealogy records his marriage to an unnamed daughter of Donmal Mor mac Turlough O'Brien, and the descent of the Earls of Ulster and Clanricarde from their son Richard. A book of genealogies recorded in the 15th century by Cú ChoigcrÃche Ó Cléirigh, one of the Four Masters (published in Annalecta Hibernica 18), indicates that the mother of Richard Mor de Burgh, William's son and successor, was the "daughter of the Saxon [English] king", an illegitimate daughter of Henry II of England or perhaps Richard I of England. Such a connection would explain the use of the term consanguineus kinsman by Edward I of England to describe Richard Óg de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster. William had three known children (with the spelling Connaught being used in titles of English nobility): Richard Mór de Burgh, 1st Baron of Connaught, Lord of Connaught. Hubert de Burgh, Bishop of Limerick. Richard Óge de Burgh, (illegitimate), Sheriff of Connaught. | de Burgh, William (I5858)
|
| 1637 | William de Lancaster I, or William Fitz Gilbert, was a nobleman of the 12th century in Northwest England. According to a document some generations later, he was also referred to as William de Tailboys (de Taillebois) when younger. He is the first person of whom there is any record to bear the name of Lancaster and pass it on to his descendants as a family name. He died in about 1170. Titles and positions Earliest holdings William and his relatives appear in contemporary documents relating mainly to the modern county of Cumbria, especially Copeland in western Cumberland, Furness in the Lake District, The Barony of Kendal, which became part of Westmorland, and various areas such as Barton between Kendal and Ullswater, also in Westmorland. Much of this area was not yet permanently part of England. Although only part of this area was within the later English county of Lancaster or Lancashire, this entity had not yet come to be clearly defined. So the title of "de Lancaster", by which William is remembered, could have referred not only to the church city of Lancaster, to the south of this area, but to an area under its control. In 1900, William Farrer claimed that "all of the southern half of Westmorland, not only the Kirkby Lonsdale Ward of Westmorland, but also the Kendal Ward, were linked with Northern Lancashire from a very early time" and formed a single district for fiscal administrative purposes. The following are areas associated with him ... Muncaster in Cumberland. According to William Farrer, in his 1902 edition of Lancashire Pipe Rolls and early charters,wrote: It appears that he was possessed of the lordship of Mulcaster (now Muncaster), over the Penningtons of Pennington in Furness, and under Robert de Romille, lord of Egremont and Skipton, who held it in right of his wife, Cecilia, daughter and heiress of William de Meschines. According to Farrer, this title would have been one of those granted by Roger de Mowbray, son of Nigel de Albini, having come into his hands after the decease without male heirs of Ivo de Taillebois. He also believed that this grant to William de Lancaster came to be annulled. Workington, Lamplugh and Middleton. The manors of Workington and Lamplugh in Cumberland were given by William de Lancaster, in exchange for Middleton in Westmorland, to a relative, Gospatric, son of Orme, brother-in-law of Waldeve, Lord of Allerdale. Hensingham. The Register of St Bees shows that both William son of Gilbert de Lancastre, and William's son William had land in this area. William's was at a place called Swartof or Suarthow, "probably the rising ground between Whitehaven and Hensingham, known locally as Swartha Brow". The appears to have come from his father Gilbert. His brother Roger apparently held land at Walton, just outside of modern Hensingham, and had a son named Robert. Roger and William also named a brother called Robert. Ulverston. Farrer argued that this may have been held by William and perhaps his father Gilbert, before it was granted by Stephen, Count of Boulogne and Mortain, to Furness Abbey in 1127. The possible connection of William's father Gilbert to Furness will be discussed further below. Enfeoffment from King Stephen King Stephen's reign in England lasted from 1135 to 1154, but only during a small part of this did he control this region. For the majority of his reign all or most of this area was under the rule of David I of Scotland. From during the period when Stephen was in control that "we possess distinct and clear evidence that Stephen, as king, enfeoffed a knight of the lands of Warton in Kentdale and the wide territory of Garstang, in Lancashire, to hold for the service of one knight. This was William de Lancaster, son of Gilbert by Godith his wife, described in the Inquest of service made in 1212 as "Willelmus filius Gilberti primus," that is, the first to be enfeoffed of that fee." Enfeoffment from Roger de Mowbray At a similar time, during the period 1145-1154, a major enfeoffment by Roger de Mowbray put William in control, or perhaps just confirmed his control, of what would become the Barony of Kendal, plus Warton, Garstang, and Wyresdale in Lancashire, as well as Horton in Ribblesdale and "Londsdale". The latter two are sometimes apparently being interpreted as indicating possession for some time of at least part of what would become the Wapentake of Ewcross in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The Scottish period During the Scottish occupation, Hugh de Morville became the overlord of much of this area, a position he kept when the area later returned to English control. Farrer and Curwen remark: William de Lancaster no longer held anything in Kentdale of Roger de Mowbray; but he appears to have held his lands in Westmarieland and Kentdale of Morevill by rendering Noutgeld of £14 6s. 3d. per annum, and some 16 carucates of land in nine vills in Kentdale as farmer under Morevill. In 1166 William de Lancaster I held only two knight's fees, of the new feoffment of Roger de Mowbray in Sedbergh, Thornton, Burton in Lonsdale, and the other places in Yorkshire previously named, which his descendants held long after of the fee of Mowbray by the same service. The Mowbray connexion with Kentdale had come to an end upon the accession of Henry II, who placed Hugh de Morevill in possession of Westmarieland in return, possibly, for past services and in pursuance of the policy of planting his favourites in regions of great strategic importance. Probably the change of paramount lord had little, if any, effect on the position of William de Lancaster in Kentdale. In Cumberland further west, according to several websites, William was castellan in the castle of Egremont under William fitz Duncan. The Barony of Kendal? William de Lancaster is often described as having been a Baron of Kendal. In fact this is not so clear, given the lack of clarity of records in this period. William Farrer wrote, in the Introduction to his Records of Kendal: After a careful review of the evidence which has been sketched above, the author is of opinion that no barony or reputed barony of Kentdale existed prior to the grants of 1189-90; and that neither William de Lancaster, son of Gilbert, nor William de Lancaster II, his son and successor, can be rightly described as "baron" of Kentdale. What became the Barony of Kendal is generally accepted as having come together under Ivo de Taillebois (d. 1094) in the time of William Rufus. And, as will be discussed below, at least in later generations William was depicted by his family as having been a Taillebois. A continuity is therefore often asserted between what Ivo held, and what William later held, despite the fact that William had no known hereditary claim on Kendal. (This is also the reason for the frequent assertion that William held the entire wapentake of Ewcross, even though it seems that the family of Roger de Mowbray kept hold of at least Burton in Kendal. William held two parts of it, mentioned above, while Ivo had held another, Clapham. The rest is speculation.) According to Farrer, the Barony of Kendal became a real barony only in the time of William's grand daughter Hawise, who married Gilbert son of Roger fitz Reinfrid. Both he and his son William de Lancaster III, both successors of William de Lancaster I (and possibly of Ivo de Taillebois) were certainly Barons of Kendal. Concerning other specific holdings and ranks Furness and the Royal forests. According to a later grant to Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, William must have held some position over the whole forest of Westmarieland (the Northern or Appleby Barony of Westmorland), Kendal and Furness. His claims in Furness may have gone beyond just the forest, but this appears to have put him in conflict with the claims of the Furness Abbey, and this conflict continued over many generations. His family may have had links there before him. Some websites report that his father Gilbert was known as "Gilbert of Furness". (This apparently comes from a 17th century note by Benjamin Ayloffe, mentioned below.) Lancaster Castle. According to Dugdale, the eminent English antiquarian, he was governor of Lancaster Castle in the reign of Henry II, about 1180. Little is known about how William came to hold the honour of Lancaster and use the surname, but it is sometimes suggested that it implies connections to royalty, perhaps coming from his apparent marriage to Gundred de Warrenne (or was this just yet another reward for some forgotten service, perhaps against the Scots?). Seneschal. According to a note written by the 17th century antiquarian Benjamin Ayloffe, which is reproduced in the introduction of Walford Selby's collection of Lancashire and Cheshire Records, p.xxix, William was Seneschallus Hospitii Regis, or steward of the king's household. The same note also states that William's father was the kings "Receiver for the County of Lancaster". Ancestry William's father was named Gilbert, and his mother was Godith. They are both mentioned clearly in a benefaction of William to St Mary de Pré and William was often referred to as William the son of Gilbert (fitz Gilbert). William was also said to have descended from both Ivo de Taillebois and Eldred of Workington, contemporaries of William Rufus, but the exact nature of the relationship is unclear and indeed controversial. Most likely, the connection is through daughters or illegitimate sons of these two men. Some sources exist, of which a discussion follows:- 1. Taillebois and Workington both? Once the most widespread account, that Ivo was simply the father Eldred, and Eldred the father (or grandfather) of Gilbert, now seems to be wrong, or at least has gone out of favor. The two authorities for a direct line of father-son descent from Ivo to Eldred to Ketel to Gilbert to William de Lancaster were records made much later in Cockersand Abbey and St Mary's Abbey in Yorkshire. 2. Taillebois through his father. A connection to the Taillebois family, if it was indeed one family, is mainly based upon a record in the Coucher Book of Furness Abbey, concord number CCVI, wherein Helewise, granddaughter and heir of William is party. In the genealogical notice it is claimed that William had been known as William de Tailboys, before receiving the right to be called "Willelmum de Lancastre, Baronem de Kendale". This is the only relatively contemporary evidence for this assertion however, and the facts in this document are also questioned by Farrer and Curwen, as discussed above, because they say that William was probably not Baron of Kendal, but rather an under-lord there. There was a Tailboys family present in Westmorland during the 12th century, for example in Cliburn, and these were presumably relatives of William de Lancaster. This family used the personal name Ivo at least once. 3. Workington through his mother. Concerning the connection to Eldred, in a Curia Regis Roll item dated 1212, R., 55, m. 6, Helewise and her husband Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid make claims based upon the fact that "Ketel filius Eutret" was an "antecessor" of Helewise. This could mean he was an ancestor, but it could also perhaps merely mean he was a predecessor more generally. More definitively one charter to St Leonard's York William refers to Ketel, the son of Elred, as his avunculus, which would literally mean "maternal uncle" (but the word was not always used precisely, the more general meaning of uncle might have been intended). A 1357 charter printed by Reverend F. W. Ragg in 1910 repeats the claim that Ketel son of Aldred was the avunculus of William son of Gilbert. Therefore Godith may have been a daughter of Elred of Workington, while Gilbert may have been a relative of Ivo de Taillebois, either through illegitimate sons, or perhaps one of his seeming brothers. Descendants and relatives William married Gundreda, perhaps his second wife, who was said to be the daughter of William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey and Elizabeth of Vermandois. She was the widow of Roger, the Earl of Warwick. Note that King Stephen's son, William, married Gundred's niece, Isabel de Warenne. This implies a very close relationship with the King's party. William had issue: Avicia, who married first to William de Peveral, and secondly to Richard de Morville, constable of Scotland. William, who became William de Lancaster II, and whose legitimate heir Helewise de Lancaster married Gilbert son of Roger Fitz Reinfrid. Many modern Lancasters, especially in Cumbria, appear to descend from his two illegitimate sons, Gilbert and Jordan. Jordan, who died young, and is mentioned in a benefaction to St Mary de Pré in Leicester. In the same benefaction, William II is also mentioned, apparently an adult. Agnes who married Alexander de Windsore Sigrid, married to William the clerk of Garstang. Perhaps Warine de Lancaster, royal falconer, and ancestor of a family known as "de Lea". The charters concerning Forton in the Cockersand Chartulary say, firstly that William de Lancaster II confirmed a grant made by his father to Warine, father of Henry de Lea, and secondly, in Hugh de Morville's confirmation that this William de Lancaster I was "his uncle" (awnculi sui). The record appears to allow that William might have been either Henry's uncle or Warine's. If he was Warine's uncle then the theory is that Warine was the son of an otherwise unknown brother of William de Lancaster I named Gilbert. Gilbert fitz Reinfrid and Helewise's son William also took up the name de Lancaster, becoming William de Lancaster III. He died without male heirs, heavily indebted, apparently due to payments demanded after he was captured at Rochester during the First Barons' War, and ransomed off by his father. William de Lancaster III's half brother Roger de Lancaster of Rydal inherited some of the Lancaster importance. It is thought that Roger was a son of Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid, but not of Helewise de Lancaster. Roger is widely thought to be the ancestor of the Lancasters of Howgill and Rydal in Westmorland. (In fact the line starts with one John de Lancaster of Howgill, whose connection to Roger de Lancaster and his son, John de Lancaster of Grisedale and Stanstead, is unclear except for the fact that he took over Rydal and Grasmere from the latter John.) The Lancasters of Sockbridge, Crake Trees, Brampton, Dacre, and several other manors in Westmorland and Cumberland, were apparently descended from William de Lancaster II's illegitimate son Gilbert de Lancaster. Many or perhaps all of the old Lancaster families found throughout Cumbria seem to descend from Gilbert and his brother Jordan. The de Lea family eventually lost power in the time of Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, a member of the Plantagenet royal family, with whom they had become allied during his rebellion. Another Lancaster family, in Rainhill in Lancashire, also seems to have claimed descent, given that they used the same coat of arms as Gilbert Fitz Reinfrid and his sons (argent, two bars gules, with a canton of the second, and a "lion of England", either white or gold, in the canton). However the exact nature of the link, if any, is unknown. | de Lancaster, William (I2722)
|
| 1638 | William de Tracy was born illegitimately. | de Tracy, William (I3153)
|
| 1639 | William des Roches (or Guillaume des Roches) (1165-1222), seneschal of Anjou, was a knight in the service of the Angevin Kings of England, and King Philip II of France after 1202. Guillaume was born somewhere in Anjou, most likely at Longué-Jumelles. Early life and career William des Roches early in his life had been a mesnie knight of King Henry II of England. During the rebellion of 1189, Richard of Poitou (later Richard I of England) and King Philip II of France attacked the ageing king of England in the city of his birth, Le Mans. Guillaume had participated in the defense of Le Mans in the company of such knights as William Marshal and Gerard Talbot and was with King Henry when he was forced to flee the city. According to "The History of William the Marshal", des Roches rode in the vanguard of the retreating royal force. He wheeled around with William Marshal and engaged Count Richard's vanguard where he successfully charged and knocked Philip de Colombiers off of his horse. After the death of King Henry, Guillaume enrolled in the royal mesnie of Richard, now King of England, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and Count of Anjou. William was a trusted confidant of King Richard, and during the Third Crusade he was involved in the conquest of Sicily, the Siege of Acre, the Battle of Arsuf, and the Battle of Jaffa. In 1192, he was sent with Pierre de Preaux and Gerard de Fournival as part of a deputation to obtain safe conducts for the crusading host to enter Jerusalem and its environs. William remained a steadfast adherent to Richard in his wars with King Philip of France from 1194-1199 and it may have been at this time that he was arranged to be married to Marguerite, the daughter and heiress of Robert de Sablé. Angevin Civil War At the death of Richard at Chalus in April 1199, the Angevin kingship faced a serious succession dispute between Prince John of England, brother of King Richard, and Arthur of Brittany, Richard's nephew. The leaders of England, Normandy, and Poitou sided with John, while the barons of Anjou and Brittany chose Arthur according to their customs of succession. William, then at Le Mans, threw in his support for Arthur along with a very powerful group of Manceaux and Angevin barons, including Juhel II of Mayenne and his mother Isabella of Meulan. Des Roches became Arthur's seneschal of Anjou and was entrusted with the defense of Le Mans. The city of Tours was surrendered to Arthur and Eleanor, duchess of Aquitaine and queen-mother of England. In addition, she was Arthur's grandmother. She sent a force under Viscount Aimery VII of Thouars, John's newly appointed seneschal of Anjou (replacing Robert of Turnham), Hugh IX of Lusignan, and his brother Ralph of Exoudun, count of Eu. Eleanor's force was successful in entering the suburbs of Tours, but was driven back by King Philip II of France who had himself chosen Arthur as Richard's rightful successor. In May 1199, King Philip of France met with William des Roches at Le Mans and together they attacked the border fortress of Ballon, the fortress was surrendered by Geoffrey de Brûlon, the castellan, but not before being demolished. A quarrel ensued between King Philip and William over the lordship of the site. William was adamant that Ballon belonged rightfully to Duke Arthur, while King Philip wished to retain it as his own. In June 1199, King John of England launched a massive attack into Northern Maine from Argentan. On 13 September he was successful in repulsing King Philip from the fortress of Lavardin which protected the route from Le Mans to Tours. Arthur's supporters were forced to come to terms with John, and William met with the English king at Bourg-le-Roi, a fortress of the pro-John viscounts of Beaumont-en-Maine on or about 18 September. John convinced William that Arthur of Brittany was being used solely as tool of Capetian strategy and managed to convince him to switch sides. With this, John promised him the seneschalship of Anjou. During the night, John's incumbent seneschal, Viscount Aimery, took Arthur and Constance and fled the court. They fled first to Angers, then to the court of King Philip. King John officially designated William seneschal of Anjou in December 1199 and entered Angers triumphantly on 24 June 1200. During the summer of 1201, William married Marguerite de Sablé. With this marriage came a vast landholding that included Sablé, La Suze, Briollay, Maiet, Loupelandé, Genneteil, Precigné, and the Norman manor of Agon (which was held of the lord of Mayenne). William had become overnight one of the greatest barons of Anjou and Maine and relative-in-law to the most exclusive houses of the region. Coinciding with a renewed French attack on upper Normandy, Arthur along with many prominent knights of France and Poitou attempted to capture Eleanor of Aquitaine as she traveled from Anjou to her chief seat at Poitiers. Taking refuge in the castle of Mirebeau on the road just north of Poitiers, she came under siege. William agreed to help John with the relief of the castle as long as any prisoners captured were treated within common custom. He led a large contingent of Angevin knights along with Aimery of Thouars (now returned to favor with John by the diplomacy of Eleanor of Aquitaine) in John's company, and they arrived outside the castle on the night of July 31, 1202. The Battle of Mirebeau, fought the following day, was a decisive victory for King John in which Duke Arthur of Brittany was captured. Many of the prisoners captured were important Poitevins and Bretons that were grossly mistreated, including royal relatives like the viscount Hugh of Châtellerault and André de Chauvigny, they were starved to death. Arthur himself disappeared in John's Norman prisons and many, including the French king, came to the conclusion that Arthur was in fact murdered by his uncle, King John. William immediately left John's service (between the 17th and the 25th of August) and departed to the court of Juhel de Mayenne. John sent soldiers to secure Angers and Tours and revoked William's seneschalship. King John then split the office and gave the seneschalship of Anjou to Brice the Chamberlain, a mercenary in his pay. The seneschalship of Tours was given to another mercenary captain, Martin Algais. Des Roches launched an attack on Angers and captured the city on 30 October 1202. Simultaneously, Sulpice III d'Amboise captured the town, but not the citadel at Tours. In January 1203, John mustered an army at Argentan for the reconquest of his Loire provinces. John took up court in Alençon and then Le Mans while his army was mustering. While in Le Mans he learned of the treachery of the count of Sees who had usurped authority in the town of Alençon ( a town that belonged to his grandfather, Count William Talvas, up to 1166). Along with Count Robert of Sees rebelled Viscount Ralph of Beaumont. With two great barons of northern Maine now in the French camp, John's chances of retaining even Maine were reduced significantly. John, avoiding fortresses belonging to rebels, slowly made his way back to his army at Argentan. Alençon was offered to King Philip of France by the rebellious count in return for Philip's recognition of his comital authority over the area and possession of the family's castle at La Roche-Mabile. While the barons of northern Maine kept John busy, William and a league of barons from the region including Maurice III of Craon, Thibaud V of Blaison, Bernard III of La Ferte, and Juhel II of Mayenne traveled to Paris and offered their homage and fealty to King Philip of France. With this, King Philip launched his forces into Anjou to attack strongholds that still held out for John. Saumur was captured in April 1203 and Beaufort-en-Vallée and Châteauneuf-sur-Sarthe fell soon thereafter. William, and his forces launched an attack on Le Mans and captured the city by about 17 May. One of John's final acts of 1203 was to bring Alençon under siege in August, he was unsuccessful in capturing the castle, and with many of his Norman castles under siege or already captured (including Vaudreuil), he must have known that the end of Angevin rule north of the Loire was upon him. King Philip triumphant William's family had originated from the lesser aristocracy, knights from Chateau-du-Loir, a castle that was granted as a dowry property of King Richard's widow, Berengaria of Navarre. Guillaume arranged for the exchange of his lordship of Le Mans (split with the bishop and the hereditary Manceaux seneschals, the 'Mauchien' family) for Berengaria's castle which he then became lord of. The exchange was ratified by King Philip. King Philip had conquered Normandy (receiving the surrender of Peter de Preaux at Rouen in April 1204. Philip had then marched through Anjou and entered Poitiers after the death of Duchess Eleanor on April 1. It was in Poitiers that Philip officially granted the hereditary seneschalship on to William. By a later charter (1206) William received custody of Angers, Loudun, Saumur, Brissac, Beaufort, and "all the land of Anjou" at the King's pleasure. The lasting settlement arranged in 1208 had King Philip retain authority in Touraine with the castles of Chinon, Bourgueil, Loudun, Saumur, and Langeais. William was granted custody of all of Anjou and Maine including the fortresses of Bauge and Chateauneuf-sur-Sarthe. In addition, William was granted the "third penny" of justice in Anjou and one mark of silver per fifty livres of demesnial revenue. He was also permitted to assign baillis to assist him, Hamelin de Roorta being the most prominent. Coincidentally, Aimery of Thouars was conferred the seneschalship of Poitou by King Philip to similar terms with exception to the added revenue. King John's senechal of Poitou for 1205 had been Savaric of Mauleon, who was limited to the Aunis coastline and later in the year the castle of Niort. Des Roches and Dreux of Mello, constable of France conducted the attack in Touraine culminating with capture of John's last Angevin fortresses, Chinon and Loches. Hubert de Burgh, John's castellan of both locations was forced to surrender in June 1205. In 1206, John restabilized his rule in Poitou, Guienne, and Gascony, driving Castilian forces from Bourg, Bayonne, and Dax. Leading barons of Poitou preferred the absentee rule of King John to the more autocratic rule of King Philip, the Thouars, Mauleon, Lusignan, Parthenay, and Sugeres families all allied with King John. William set out with a force of knights to defend the Roman road connecting Tours and Poitiers. Other than a brief occupation of Angers, John was unsuccessful in making further progress north of the Loire. John departed after signing a two-year truce with King Philip that recognized the status quo. As soon as the truce was up in 1208, William and Dreux de Mello (based at Loches) collected some 300 knights and launched numerous attacks on Thouars holdings in Poitou. Albigensian Crusade and later life William took the cross in 1209 and left Anjou to crusade in the Toulousain and Languedoc with the Eudes III of Burgundy against the Cathar heretics. He was active at the siege of Béziers in July and Carcassonne in August. He wouldn't again participate in the Albigensian Crusade until 1219 at the Siege of Marmande under Prince Louis (later Louis VIII of France, the eldest son and heir of King Philip II of France. King John again attacked Anjou from the south during the Bouvines Campaign of 1214. John was repulsed from Nantes but was able to enter Angers on 17 June. John moved out of the city to reduce the local forts, two succumbed quickly, but the garrison of the new fort at La Roche-aux-Moines, located just south of Angers, held out. An army of 800 knights under the command of the seneschal, Prince Louis, Amauri I de Craon, and Henri Clement, marshal of France collected at Chinon. John was deserted by his Thouars and Lusignan allies upon hearing of the collection of so great a force. On 2 July 1214, William and Prince Louis were victorious at the Battle of La Roche-aux-Moines and forced John to retreat clear to La Rochelle. The seneschal died in 1222 and his eldest daughter, Jeanne brought the Sable barony and the hereditary seneschalship to her husband, Amauri de Craon. | des Roches, William Seneschal of Anjou (I1512)
|
| 1640 | William fitz Nigel, 2nd Baron Halton, was a prominent 12th-century noble. He was a son of Nigel, 1st Baron Halton. William died in 1134. He succeeded to the title Baron of Halton and position of Constable of Chester upon his father's death. He held lands in Halton, throughout Cheshire and also in Normandy. Through his mother, as heiress, he obtained the title Baron of Widnes and the Lancashire manors of Widnes, Appleton, Cronton and Rainhill. In 1115 he established a priory of the Augustinian Order of Canons Regular in Runcorn. He died in 1134 at Halton Castle and was buried at Chester. Marriage and issue He married Agnes de Gant, daughter of Gilbert de Gant and Alice de Montfort. Agnes, she married Eustace fitz John. Had issue. Leucha, she married Robert De Mohaut. Had Issue. Matilda, she married Albert de Grelle. Had issue. William, died 1149, with no issue. The son of Nigel of Cotentin. He also held the honour of being the Marshal of the Earls' host, which was an important position in the Norman military hierarchy. In addition to his land in Halton, his estate included land in other parts of Cheshire and also in Normandy. He married the eldest daughter of Yorfid, the baron of Widnes. Yorfid left no male heir and on his death the Lancashire manors of Widnes, Appleton, Cronton and Rainhill came to William. In 1115 he established a priory of the Augustinian Order of Canons Regular in Runcorn. He was buried at Chester | FitzNigel, William (I5111)
|
| 1641 | William fitzBaderon (c. 1060/65? - before 1138) was an Anglo-Norman nobleman of Breton descent, who was lord of Monmouth between about 1082 and 1125. He was mentioned in the Domesday Book as being responsible for Monmouth Castle and ten other manors in the surrounding region, and was responsible in 1101 for the consecration of the town’s Priory which had been established in 1075 by his uncle Withenoc. Life He was the son of Baderon, a nobleman of La Boussac, near Dol in Brittany. Baderon's brother Withenoc (or Gwithenoc) was appointed lord of Monmouth by King William after the disgrace of Roger de Breteuil in 1075, and founded the Priory at Monmouth. The pious Withenoc then gave up his secular responsibilities in about 1082 to become a monk at Saumur, and, because his own son Raterius and his brother Baderon were also monks, the responsibilities fell on Baderon’s son, William. Withenoc's responsibilities initially passed for a short time to Ranulf de Colville, perhaps because William had not yet reached adulthood. In any event, by the time of the Domesday Book in 1086, William had become a major landowner. Besides his castle at Monmouth, he was also lord of Huntley, Longhope, Ruardean, and Siddington, in Gloucestershire; and of Ashperton, Hope Mansell, Munsley, Stretton Grandison, Walsopthorne and Whitwick, in Herefordshire. At Monmouth, he may have been responsible for completing the rebuilding of the original wooden motte and bailey castle in stone. He and his family, together with his vassals, their wives, and Wihenoc, were present when Monmouth Priory was consecrated in 1101. William was of sufficient eminence to attract to the ceremony such notables as King Henry’s chaplain, Bernard. William granted, to the abbey of Saint Florent at Saumur, the Priory Church of St Mary at Monmouth, "and all their churches, and the tithes of all their lands and of all their tenants, namely, of grain, of stock, of honey, of iron, of mills, of cheeses, and of whatever is tithed. They also gave, near the castle of Monemuda (Monmouth) the land of three ploughs and the mill of Milebroc (?), and a meadow at Blakenalre (?), and land at St. Cadoc (Llangattock-Vibon-Avel), and a meadow beneath their castle, and a virgate of land, namely, Godric's, and at Siddington a hide of land, and in all their woods pannage for swine of the monks' demesne. They also gave all wood required by the monks or their men for building. Lastly, [he] granted seven burgesses in their market-place, free from all toll and from all dues, save offences deserving corporal penalty." William married Hawise (or Hadwise), and was succeeded as lord of Monmouth by his eldest son, Baderon fitzWilliam of Monmouth, in about 1125. It is not known whether he died at that time, or retreated to a monastic life. | fitzBaderon, William Lord of Monmouth (I5587)
|
| 1642 | William I 'the Conqueror', King of England was born between 1027 and 1028 at Falise Castle, Falaise, Normandy, France, illegitimately. He was the son of Robert I, 6th Duc de Normandie and Herleva de Falaise. He married Matilda de Flandre, daughter of Baldwin V de Lille, Comte de Flandre and Adela de France, Princesse de France, in 1053 at Cathedral of Notre Dame d'Eu, Normandy, France. He died on 9 September 1087 at Priory of St. Gervais, Rouen, Caux, France, from wounds received while fighting. He was buried at St. Stephen Abbey, Caen, Normandy, France. William I 'the Conqueror', King of England also went by the nick-name of William 'the Conqueror'. William I 'the Conqueror', King of England also went by the nick-name of William 'le Batard' (or in English, the Bastard). In 1035 on his father's death, William was recognised by his family as the heir - an exception to the general rule that illegitimacy barred succession. His great uncle looked after the Duchy during William's minority, and his overlord, King Henry I of France, knighted him at the age of 15. He succeeded to the title of 7th Duc de Normandie on 22 June 1035. He gained the title of Comte de Maine in 1063. He fought in the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066 at Hastings, Sussex, England. He was crowned King of England on 25 December 1066 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London, England, and styled 'Willielmus Rex Anglorum.' He gained the title of King William I of England on 25 December 1066.7 He fought in the Siege of Mantes in September 1087. From 1047 onwards, William successfully dealt with rebellion inside Normandy involving his kinsmen and threats from neighbouring nobles, including attempted invasions by his former ally King Henry I of France in 1054 (the French forces were defeated at the Battle of Mortemer). William's military successes and reputation helped him to negotiate his marriage to Mathilda, daughter of Count Baldwin V of Flanders. At the time of his invasion of England, William was a very experienced and ruthless military commander, ruler and administrator who had unified Normandy and inspired fear and respect outside his duchy. William's claim to the English throne was based on his assertion that, in 1051, Edward the Confessor had promised him the throne (he was a distant cousin) and that Harold II - having sworn in 1064 to uphold William's right to succeed to that throne - was therefore a usurper. Furthermore, William had the support of Emperor Henry IV and papal approval. William took seven months to prepare his invasion force, using some 600 transport ships to carry around 7,000 men (including 2,000-3,000 cavalry) across the Channel. On 28 September 1066, with a favourable wind, William landed unopposed at Pevensey and, within a few days, raised fortifications at Hastings. Having defeated an earlier invasion by the King of Norway at the Battle of Stamford Bridge near York in late September, Harold undertook a forced march south, covering 250 miles in some nine days to meet the new threat, gathering inexperienced reinforcements to replenish his exhausted veterans as he marched. At the Battle of Senlac (near Hastings) on 14 October, Harold's weary and under-strength army faced William's cavalry (part of the forces brought across the Channel) supported by archers. Despite their exhaustion, Harold's troops were equal in number (they included the best infantry in Europe equipped with their terrible two-handled battle axes) and they had the battlefield advantage of being based on a ridge above the Norman positions. The first uphill assaults by the Normans failed and a rumour spread that William had been killed; William rode among the ranks raising his helmet to show he was still alive. The battle was close-fought: a chronicler described the Norman counter-attacks and the Saxon defence as 'one side attacking with all mobility, the other withstanding as though rooted to the soil'. Three of William's horses were killed under him. William skilfully co-ordinated his archers and cavalry, both of which the English forces lacked. During a Norman assault, Harold was killed - hit by an arrow and then mowed down by the sword of a mounted knight. Two of his brothers were also killed. The demoralised English forces fled. In 1070, as penance, William had an abbey built on the site of the battle, with the high altar occupying the spot where Harold fell. The ruins of Battle Abbey, and the town of Battle, which grew up around it, remain. Three months after his coronation, he was confident enough to return to Normandy leaving two joint regents (one of whom was his half-brother Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, who was later to commission the Bayeux Tapestry) behind to administer the kingdom. However, it took William six years to consolidate his conquest, and even then he had to face constant plotting and fighting on both sides of the Channel. In 1068, Harold's sons raided the south-west coast of England (dealt with by William's local commanders), and there were uprisings in the Welsh Marches, Devon and Cornwall. William appointed earls who, in Wales and in all parts of the kingdom, undertook to guard the threatened frontiers and maintain internal security in return for land. In 1069, the Danes, in alliance with Prince Edgar the Aetheling (Ethelred's great-grandson) and other English nobles, invaded the north and took York. Taking personal charge, and pausing only to deal with the rising at Stafford, William drove the Danes back to their ships on the Humber. In a harsh campaign lasting into 1070, William systematically devastated Mercia and Northumbria to deprive the Danes of their supplies and prevent recovery of English resistance. Churches and monasteries were burnt, and agricultural land was laid to waste, creating a famine for the unarmed and mostly peasant population which lasted at least nine years. Although the Danes were bribed to leave the north, King Sweyn of Denmark and his ships threatened the east coast (in alliance with various English, including Hereward the Wake) until a treaty of peace was concluded in June 1070. Further north, where the boundary with Scotland was unclear, King Malcolm III was encroaching into England. Yet again, William moved swiftly and moved land and sea forces north to invade Scotland. The Treaty of Abernethy in 1072 marked a truce, which was reinforced by Malcolm's eldest son being accepted as a hostage. William consolidated his conquest by starting a castle-building campaign in strategic areas. Originally these castles were wooden towers on earthen 'mottes' (mounds) with a bailey (defensive area) surrounded by earth ramparts, but many were later rebuilt in stone. By the end of William's reign over 80 castles had been built throughout his kingdom, as a permanent reminder of the new Norman feudal order. William's wholesale confiscation of land from English nobles and their heirs (many nobles had died at the battles of Stamford Bridge and Senlac) enabled him to recruit and retain an army, by demanding military duties in exchange for land tenancy granted to Norman, French and Flemish allies. He created up to 180 'honours' (lands scattered through shires, with a castle as the governing centre), and in return had some 5,000 knights at his disposal to repress rebellions and pursue campaigns; the knights were augmented by mercenaries and English infantry from the Anglo-Saxon militia, raised from local levies. William also used the fyrd, the royal army - a military arrangement which had survived the Conquest. The King's tenants-in-chief in turn created knights under obligation to them and for royal duties (this was called subinfeudation), with the result that private armies centred around private castles were created - these were to cause future problems of anarchy for unfortunate or weak kings. By the end of William's reign, a small group of the King's tenants had acquired about half of England's landed wealth. Only two Englishmen still held large estates directly from the King. A foreign aristocracy had been imposed as the new governing class. The expenses of numerous campaigns, together with an economic slump (caused by the shifts in landed wealth, and the devastation of northern England for military and political reasons), prompted William to order a full-scale investigation into the actual and potential wealth of the kingdom to maximise tax revenues. The Domesday survey was prompted by ignorance of the state of land holding in England, as well as the result of the costs of defence measures in England and renewed war in France. The scope, speed, efficiency and completion of this survey was remarkable for its time and resulted in the two-volume Domesday Book of 1086, which still exists today. William needed to ensure the direct loyalty of his feudal tenants. The 1086 Oath of Salisbury was a gathering of William's 170 tenants-in-chief and other important landowners who took an oath of fealty to William. William's reach extended elsewhere into the Church and the legal system. French superseded the vernacular (Anglo-Saxon). Personally devout, William used his bishops to carry out administrative duties. Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1070, was a first-class administrator who assisted in government when William was absent in France, and who reorganised the Church in England. Having established the primacy of his archbishopric over that of York, and with William's approval, Lanfranc excommunicated rebels, and set up Church or spiritual courts to deal with ecclesiastical matters. Lanfranc also replaced English bishops and abbots (some of whom had already been removed by the Council of Winchester under papal authority) with Norman or French clergy to reduce potential political resistance. In addition, Canterbury and Durham Cathedrals were rebuilt and some of the bishops' sees were moved to urban centres. At his coronation, William promised to uphold existing laws and customs. The Anglo-Saxon shire courts and 'hundred' courts (which administered defence and tax, as well as justice matters) remained intact, as did regional variations and private Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions. To strengthen royal justice, William relied on sheriffs (previously smaller landowners, but replaced by influential nobles) to supervise the administration of justice in existing county courts, and sent members of his own court to conduct important trials. However, the introduction of Church courts, the mix of Norman/Roman law and the differing customs led to a continuing complex legal framework. More severe forest laws reinforced William's conversion of the New Forest into a vast Royal deer reserve. These laws caused great resentment, and to English chroniclers the New Forest became a symbol of William's greed. Nevertheless the King maintained peace and order. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1087 declared 'he was a very stern and violent man, so no one dared do anything contrary to his will ... Amongst other things the good security he made in this country is not to be forgotten.' William spent the last months of his reign in Normandy, fighting a counter-offensive in the French Vexin territory against King Philip's annexation of outlying Normandy territory. Before his death on 9 September 1087, William divided his 'Anglo-Norman' state between his sons. (The scene was set for centuries of expensive commitments by successive English monarchs to defend their inherited territories in France.) William bequeathed Normandy as he had promised to his eldest son Robert, despite their bitter differences (Robert had sided with his father's enemies in Normandy, and even wounded and defeated his father in a battle there in 1079). His son, William Rufus, was to succeed William as King of England, and the third remaining son, Henry, was left 5,000 pounds in silver.8 He has an extensive biographical entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. Dictionary of National Biography William the Conqueror 1027?-1087, king of England, natural son of Robert II, duke of Normandy, by Herleva or Arlette, daughter of Fulbert, a tanner of Falaise, whence he was called the Bastard, was born at Falaise in 1027 or 1028 (Will. of Jumièges, vi. 12, vii. 18, 44; Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii. 581-90). His mother also bore, probably to Robert, Adeliza, wife of Enguerrand of Ponthieu (ib.; Archæologia, xxvi. 349). After Robert's death she married Herlwin of Conteville, by whom she had Odo [qv.], bishop of Bayeux, Robert of Mortain [see Mortain], and a daughter Muriel. When Robert was setting out on his pilgrimage he caused his lords to elect William as his successor, and to swear fealty to him. Accordingly on the news of his death, in 1035, William became duke, having as guardians Alan, count of Brittany, Osbern the seneschal, and Gilbert of Eu, and being under the charge of one Turold. Disturbances broke out immediately. Many of his lords were disloyal, for they despised him for his birth, they built themselves fortresses and committed acts of violence. Alan was poisoned, and Gilbert and Turold were murdered. An attempt was made to seize William's person at Vaudreuil; Osbern, who slept in his room, was slain, but William was carried off by his mother's brother Walter, who concealed him in the dwellings of some poor people. As William grew older he proved himself brave and wise. By the advice of his lords he appointed as his guardian Ralph de Wacy, who had slain Gilbert of Eu, and gave him command of his forces. While the number of those who were loyal to him increased, many were secretly disloyal and intrigued against him with Henry I, the French king. Henry complained that the border fortress of Tillières was an annoyance to him, and the duke's counsellors ordered its destruction. The castellan, William Crispin, only yielded the place at William's express command. The French burnt it and made a raid in the Hiemois. The governor of the country revolted and garrisoned Falaise against the duke, but the castle was taken and he was banished. William and his counsellors advocated the adoption of the truce of God which was accepted by the Normans at the council of Caen in 1042. In 1047 Guy, the lord of Brionne and Vernon, son of the count of Burgundy by Adeliza, daughter of Richard II of Normandy, and the duke's companion in boyhood, hoping to gain the whole, or a good part, of his cousin's duchy, conspired against him with the lords of the Cotentin and Bessin, inciting them not to obey a degenerate bastard. The eastern, or more French, portion of the duchy remained faithful to William; the western, or more Scandinavian, portion rebelled. An attempt was made to seize the duke at Valognes; he narrowly escaped, rode alone through the night to Rye, and thence reached Falaise. He went to Poissy to meet King Henry and obtained his help. The duke and the king joined forces and defeated the rebels at Val-ès-dunes, near Caen. William then took Brionne. He ordered Guy to remain in his court, and afterwards allowed him to go to Burgundy; the other rebel lords were punished by fines and by the destruction of the castles which they had built without license; the lord who had attempted to seize the duke was imprisoned at Rouen and died there. The duke's victory established his power throughout Normandy. In return for Henry's help William in 1048 joined him in a war against Geoffrey Martel, count of Anjou. The duke was resolved to take his place as pre-eminent among his barons in battle, and showed so much daring that the king warned him to be less adventurous. Though, so far as the French were concerned, the campaign was short, it led to a war between William and Geoffrey, in which the duke regained Domfront and Alençon, fortresses on the border of Maine, then virtually under the rule of Geoffrey. While besieging Domfront he challenged Geoffrey to a personal combat, but the count, though he accepted the challenge, retreated without meeting him. At Alençon the inhabitants jeered at William by beating hides on their walls, and calling him tanner. In revenge he cut off the hands and feet of thirty-two of them. At the end of the war he raised fortifications at Ambrières, in Maine itself. In 1051 William visited England, and must have found himself at home among the Normans and Frenchmen of the court of his cousin, Edward the Confessor [qv.], who probably during his visit promised that he should succeed him. Meanwhile he was with the advice of his lords seeking to marry Matilda, daughter of the Count of Flanders, an alliance of great political importance, both on account of the count's power and the situation of his dominions. The marriage was forbidden by Leo IX at the council of Reims in 1049 [see under Matilda d. 1083 and Lanfranc], and in consequence was not celebrated until 1053. Malger, archbishop of Rouen, the duke's uncle, threatened, and perhaps pronounced, excommunication against the duke; but William gained over Lanfranc to his side, and finally Nicolas II granted a dispensation for the marriage in 1059. In accordance with the pope's commands on this occasion William built the abbey of St. Stephen at Caen. An unimportant revolt of the lord of Eu was followed in 1053 by the revolt of William of Arques, one of the duke's uncles and brother of Archbishop Malger. This William, who had constantly been disloyal to his nephew, was upheld by the French king, who marched to the relief of Arques when it was invested by the duke. To avoid fighting in person against his liege lord, the duke left the siege for a while to William Giffard. The French suffered in a skirmish at St. Aubin, and retired without relieving the place, which surrendered to the duke. The garrison made an abject submission, and William allowed his uncle to leave the duchy. Jealous of the almost kingly power of the duke, Henry of France formed a league against him with some of his great vassals and invaded the duchy on both sides of the Seine early in 1054. To meet this pressing danger, William also divided his force into two bodies, and himself led one of them to operate against the division commanded by the king on the left of the river, giving some of his lords the command of the force which was to oppose the army led by the king's brother Eudes and others on the right of the river. The army of Eudes was surprised and routed at Mortemer, and one of its leaders, Guy, count of Ponthieu, was taken prisoner. William, who was near the king's army when he heard of the victory of his lords, sent one of his followers to climb a tree or rock near the French camp by night and announce it to the king's army, and on hearing the news Henry hastily retreated into France. Peace was made with France in 1055, and William, with the king's good-will, turned on the Count of Anjou. He ordered that the fortification of Ambrières should be pressed forward, and sent to tell Geoffrey that he would be there within forty days to meet him. Geoffrey of Mayenne, whose town lay near Ambrières, entreated the count's help against the Normans. The count promised that it should be given, but allowed the works to be completed. He then besieged the place in conjunction with the Count of Aquitaine and a force from Brittany. William at once prepared to go to its relief, and on hearing that he was coming Geoffrey raised the siege. Geoffrey of Mayenne, who had been taken prisoner by the Normans, renounced his fealty to the count and did homage to William. About this time also William received homage from Guy, count of Ponthieu, who, in return for his release from prison, bound himself to do the duke military service (Ord. Vit. p. 658) William was highly displeased by the unseemly life and extravagance of Archbishop Malger, and often reproved him both publicly and in private. He was also angered by the line that his uncle had taken with reference to his marriage, and further suspected him of complicity in the revolt of his brother William of Arques. Accordingly he took advantage of the visit of a papal legate to Normandy to depose the archbishop, acting in this in unison with the legate at a synod held at Rouen. He banished Malger to Guernsey, and at an ecclesiastical council held in his presence in the same year (1055) caused the election of Maurilius, a French monk of Fécamp, a man of learning and holy life, to the see of Rouen. After about three years of peace, Henry for the third time invaded Normandy, in conjunction with Geoffrey of Anjou, in August 1058. The allies did much damage to the country, ravaging the Hiemois and the Bessin, and burning Caen before, as it seems, William could gather a sufficient force to meet them. While their army was crossing the Dive, and after the king and the vanguard had already crossed, William, at the head of a small company, suddenly fell on the remainder of the army at Varaville and cut it to pieces before the eyes of the king, who was prevented by the rising tide from sending any succour to his men. On this disaster the king and Geoffrey speedily returned home. The deaths of Henry and Count Geoffrey in 1060 secured William from further attacks, for Henry's successor, Philip I, was young, and his guardian was the Count of Flanders, William's father-in-law, while the new Count of Anjou, Geoffrey the Bearded, was far less powerful than his uncle had been. William had made himself feared or respected by foreign powers, and was absolute master in his duchy both in things ecclesiastical and civil. He banished several lords whom he suspected of disaffection, not always justly, for he sometimes acted on false and malicious accusations. Among others, he deposed and banished Robert, abbot of St. Evroul, brother of Hugh (d. 1094) [q.v.] of Grantmesnil, though he had not been condemned by synodical authority. About two years later Robert, who had laid his case before Nicolas II, returned to Normandy in company with two cardinals, and went with them to Lillebonne, where the duke then was, to claim his abbey. William was greatly enraged, and declared that, though he would receive the legates, he would promptly hang on the highest oak of the nearest forest any monk of his duchy who dared to make a charge against him. On hearing this Robert left the duchy in haste (ib. p. 482). At a council held at Caen by the duke's authority in 1061, it was decreed that every evening a bell should be rung as an invitation to prayer, and a signal for all to shut their doors and not to go forth again. This was the origin of the curfew which was afterwards introduced into England. On the death of Geoffrey Martel, William, who had let no opportunity slip of gaining power in Maine, was enabled to prosecute the claim to that land which he derived from an alleged grant to his ancestor Hrolf or Rollo. Herbert, the young heir of the last count of Maine, in the hope of gaining possession of his inheritance, commended himself and his country to the duke in 1061; it was agreed that he should marry one of the duke's daughters, that if he died childless William should have Maine, and that the count's eldest sister Margaret should marry William's eldest son Robert. Herbert died unmarried in 1063, when Robert was still a child. The people of Maine were unwilling to submit to William, and were headed by Walter of Mantes, who claimed the country in right of his wife Biota, aunt of Herbert. William ravaged the land, and compelled Le Mans to surrender, while a Norman army ravaged Walter's own territories and forced him to submit to the duke. Both Walter and Biota died suddenly, and, it is said, while they were with the duke at Falaise. In after years William's enemies asserted that he had poisoned them (ib. pp. 487-8, 534). Geoffrey of Mayenne continued for a while to resist the duke in Maine, who punished him by taking Mayenne. Robert's intended wife Margaret was brought to Normandy, and died there before reaching marriageable age. In 1064, when Conan, count of Brittany, was threatening to invade the duchy, William caused Guy of Ponthieu to deliver to him Harold (1022?-1066) [q.v.], then earl of Wessex, who had been shipwrecked on the coast of Ponthieu. Taking Harold with him, he frightened the Britons away from before Dol, and compelled Conan to surrender Dinan. Before Harold was allowed to leave Normandy William obtained an oath from him, sworn on some relics which, it is said, were concealed from him until after the oath was taken, that he would uphold the duke's claim to succeed to the English throne on the king's death [see under Harold, u.s.]. William, who was a kinsman of Edward the Confessor (both being descended from Duke Richard the Fearless), having thus obtained an oath from Harold as well as a promise of the succession from Edward (Will. of Poitiers, p. 108; Eadmer, col. 350; Will. of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii. c. 228), heard with anger that immediately on Edward's death Harold had, on 6 Jan. 1066, been crowned king. The tidings came to him when he was going forth to hunt near Rouen, and he determined, on the advice, it is said, of his seneschal, William Fitzosbern (d. 1071) [q.v.], to take immediate action. He sent a messenger to Harold, calling on him to fulfil his oath. On his refusal the duke, by the advice of his special counsellors, summoned an assembly of his barons to meet at Lillebonne. Meanwhile he sent Gilbert, archdeacon of Lisieux, to obtain the sanction of the pope, Alexander II, for his proposed war. In addition to William's claim, founded on kinship and the bequest of Edward, William's ambassador advanced the perjury of Harold, and the causes of offence given by the English, such as the expulsion of Archbishop Robert of Jumièges. The duke's ambassador doubtless promised that his master would improve the ecclesiastical condition of England, and bring it into close obedience to the Roman see (Will. of Poitiers, p. 124). Nevertheless he met with violent opposition from many of the cardinals, on the ground that the church should not sanction slaughter; but the duke's cause was espoused by Archdeacon Hildebrand (Gregory VII), and, acting on his advice, the pope sent William his blessing, a ring, with a relic of St. Peter, and a consecrated banner, so that his expedition had something of the character of a crusade (Monumenta Gregoriana, p. 414). The barons at Lillebonne objected to the proposals made to them by William Fitzosbern, and the duke obtained promises from them of ships and men by personally soliciting each baron singly. He received a visit from Earl Tostig [q.v.], and encouraged him to invade England in May. As he desired help from other lands, he sent embassies to the German king, Henry, and to Sweyn of Denmark, and is said himself to have met Philip of France,who was adverse to his project. Volunteers from many lands, and specially from France and Flanders, joined him, in the hope of plunder and of grants of land in England, and he and his lords set about preparing a fleet. During these preparations his old enemy, Conan of Brittany, died, poisoned, it was believed, by his chamberlain, though William was afterwards accused of having poisoned him, but that was probably mere abuse (Will. of Jumièges, vii. 33; Ord. Vit. p. 534). In a council that he held in June he appointed Lanfranc abbot of St. Stephen's at Caen, and shortly afterwards was present at the consecration of Matilda's church in that city and the dedication of his daughter Cicely. The Norman fleet assembled at the mouth of the Dive in the middle of August, was delayed there for a month by contrary winds, and sailed, with some losses by shipwreck and desertion, to St. Valery about 12 Sept. There it waited for a south wind for fifteen days, during which William made constant prayers for the desired wind, and finally caused the relics of St. Valery to be borne in a solemn procession. On the 27th the south wind blew and the fleet sailed, William embarking in the Mora, the ship given him by his wife, whom he left in charge of the duchy. The passage was made by night, and a landing was effected without resistance at Pevensey on the 28th, the third day after the battle of Stamford Bridge. The story that the duke on landing fell to the ground, and that this was turned to a lucky omen either by William himself, or a sailor crying out that he took ‘seisin’ of the kingdom, is probably an adaptation of the story of Cæsar's landing in Africa (Freeman, iii. 407). His army perhaps consisted of from twenty-five to thirty thousand men, but no certain estimate is possible. He fortified his camp at Hastings and ravaged the country. Harold marched against him from London on 11 Oct., and took up his position on the hill afterwards called Battle, eight miles from Hastings, and messages passed between them. On the morning of the 14th the duke received the communion, arrayed his army in three divisions, himself taking command of the centre, which was composed of Normans, the soldiers of Brittany and Maine composing the left, and the French and Flemings the right wing; vowed that if he was victorious he would build a monastery on the place of battle in honour of St. Martin, and made an address to his army. He rode a horse given him by Alfonso VI, of Leon and Castille, and in the course of the battle showed great personal courage as well as good generalship. He was thought to be slain, and a panic ensued; he bared his head so as to be recognised and rallied his men; his horse was killed by Gyrth [q.v.]; he slew Gyrth and mounted another horse; three horses were slain under him, but he remained unwounded (for the details of the battle see Freeman, u.s. pp. 467-508, 756-73; attacked in Quarterly Review, July 1892; defended and further attacked in English Hist. Review, October 1893, January and April 1894; Oman, Art of War in the Middle Ages, pp. 149-63; Round, Feudal England, pp. 352 seq.). The Norman victory was complete and Harold was slain. After the battle William remained for five days at Hastings, when, finding that the English did not come to offer their submission, he marched to Romney, and avenged some of his men who had been slain there before the battle; thence he marched to Dover, where he remained about a week, then went northwards, being delayed a short time near Canterbury by illness, and thence went on to Southwark, the line of his march being marked by ravages. A skirmish took place at Southwark, to which he set fire, and, finding that London did not make submission, he turned away, marched through Surrey and Hampshire, and on to Wallingford in Berkshire, where he received the submission of Archbishop Stigand [q.v.], and crossed the Thames. After further ravages (see Engl. Hist. Review, January 1898, on ‘The Conqueror's Footprints,’ a suggestive paper, though perhaps seeking to prove too much), he finally came to Berkhampstead in Hertfordshire. The Londoners, finding themselves surrounded by devastated lands, submitted to him, and the great men who were in the city, Edgar Atheling [q.v.], Aldred (d. 1096) [q.v.], archbishop of York, and others, came to him, and invited him to assume the crown. He received them graciously. Refusing to allow Stigand, whose position was uncanonical, to consecrate him, he was crowned, after taking the coronation oath, by Aldred at Westminster on 25 Dec. The ceremony was disturbed by his Norman guards, who, mistaking the shouts of the people for an insurrection, set fire to buildings round the abbey. The people rushed from the church, leaving the king, the bishops, and the clergy in great fear. In consequence of this affair William determined to curb the power of the citizens; he left London and stayed for some days at Barking in Essex, while fortifications were raised in the city. At Barking possibly he granted his charter to London. He received the submission of the great men of the north, of Earls Edwin [q.v.] and Morcar [q.v.], of Copsige [q.v.], Waltheof [q.v.], and others. Succeeding as king to the crown lands, he confiscated the lands of those who had fought against him, and, holding that all the laity had incurred forfeiture, allowed the landholders generally to redeem their lands in whole or in part, receiving them back as a grant from himself. During his whole reign he punished resistance by confiscation (Freeman, iv. 22-9). Early in 1067 he set out on a progress through various parts of the kingdom for the purpose, as it seems, of taking over confiscated estates, establishing order, and strengthening his power by setting on foot the building of castles. He met with no opposition, and showed indulgence to the poorer and weaker people. After appointing his brother Odo, whom he made earl of Kent, and William Fitzosbern, whom he made earl of Hereford, as regent, and giving posts to others, he visited Normandy in Lent, taking with him several leading Englishmen. He was received with great rejoicing at Rouen, held his court at Easter at Fécamp, where he displayed the spoils of England, enriched many Norman churches with them, attended dedications of churches, and sent Lanfranc on an embassy to Rome on the affairs of the duchy. William returned to England on 7 Dec. During his absence disturbances had broken out in Kent, in Herefordshire, and in the north, where Copsige, whom William had made earl, was slain, and an invitation had been sent to Sweyn Estrithson of Denmark to invade England. The Kentish insurrection had been quelled, and William made many confiscations. In the hope of averting Danish invasion he sent an embassy to Sweyn and to the archbishop of Bremen. He appointed a new earl in Copsige's place and laid a heavy tax on the kingdom. An insurrection, headed by Harold's sons at Exeter, having broken out in the west in 1068, William marched thither with English troops, ravaging as he went. He compelled Exeter to surrender, had a castle built there, and subdued the west country. Rebels gathered at York, and the king, after occupying Warwick, where Edwin and Morcar, who were concerned in the revolt, made their peace with him, and receiving the submission of the central districts, advanced to York, which made no resistance to him. As he returned he visited other parts of the country, and caused castles to be built in various towns. About this time he dismissed his foreign mercenaries after rewarding them liberally. Early in 1069 Robert of Comines, to whom he had given an earldom north of the Tees, was slain with his men at Durham, and a revolt in favour of Edgar was made at York, where the castle was besieged. William marched to its relief, defeated the rebels, and caused a second castle to be built to curb the city. Harold's sons, who, sailing from Ireland, had made a raid on the west in the preceding year, again came over with Viking crews and plundered in Devonshire. They were promptly put to flight; but it was doubtless in connection with their expedition that the fleet of Sweyn of Denmark, after some plundering descents, sailed into the Humber in September, and being joined by Edgar, Waltheof, and other English leaders, burnt York. Other revolts broke out, in the west where the rebels were defeated by the bishop of Coutances, on the Welsh border, and in Staffordshire, the movements being without concert. William, who was surprised and enraged at the news from York, marched into Lindsey, where the Danish ships were laid up, destroyed some Danish holds, and, leaving a force there, crushed the revolt in Staffordshire, and entered York without opposition. He then laid waste all the country between York and Durham, burning crops, cattle, houses, and property of all kinds, so that the whole land was turned into a desert and the people perished with hunger. After keeping Christmas amid the ruins of York, he marched to the Tees in January 1070, received the submission of Waltheof and others, committed further ravages, returned to York, and thence set out for Chester. The winter weather made his march difficult; some of his men deserted and many perished. The fall of Chester ended the revolt in that district, and was followed by ravages in Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, and Derbyshire. The Danish fleet having been bribed to leave the coast after the winter, all resistance was at an end and the conquest of England was complete (ib. pp. 320-22). At Easter two legates came to England by William's request, and one remained with him for a year. Their coming enabled him to carry out part of his policy with respect to the church. Stigand was deposed and Lanfranc was made archbishop in his place. Three other English bishops, and in time many abbots, were also deposed, and vacancies were filled up by foreign prelates, only two sees being occupied by native bishops by the end of 1070 (Stubbs, Constitutional History, i. 282). As he had done in Normandy, so also in England, William generally tried to appoint men of learning and good character; he avoided simony, and, though his appointments were not always successful and his abbots were not generally so worthy as his bishops, the prelates that he introduced were, taken together, men of a higher stamp than their predecessors. At the same time, his changes entailed much hardship on English churchmen, and his church appointments were often made as rewards for secular service. All disorder was abhorrent to him. He was masterful in his dealings with the church as in all else, and, though elections were often made in ecclesiastical assemblies, his will was evidently not less obeyed than in cases in which his personal action is more apparent. With Lanfranc he worked in full accord, and his general policy may be described as that of organising the church as a separate department of government under the direction of the archbishop as his vicegerent in ecclesiastical matters, in opposition to the English system by which ecclesiastical and civil affairs were largely administered by the same machinery. This policy worked well in his time, but it was necessary to its success that the throne and the see of Canterbury should be filled by men of like mind and aims to those of William and Lanfranc. William upheld Lanfranc's claim to the obedience of the see of York because it was politically expedient to depress the power of the northern metropolitan. In accordance with his system church councils were held distinct from, though generally at the same time as, the secular councils of the realm. He also separated ecclesiastical from secular jurisdiction, ordering that no bishop or archdeacon should thenceforward hear ecclesiastical pleas in the hundred court, but in courts of their own, and should try them by canon law, obedience being enforced by excommunication, which, if necessary, would be backed up by the civil power (ib. pp. 283-4). Although he brought the church into closer relations with the papacy, from which he had obtained help both in his invasion and his ecclesiastical arrangements, he was far from being subservient to popes. About 1076 a legate came to him from Gregory demanding that he should do fealty to the pope and send Peter's pence. He replied that he would send the money as his predecessors had done, but would not do fealty, for he had never promised it and his predecessors had not done it (Lanfranc, Ep. 10). The pope blamed him for Lanfranc's neglect of his summons to Rome (Monumenta Gregoriana, p. 367). He laid down three rules as necessary to his kingly rights: he would allow no Roman pontiff to be acknowledged in his dominions as apostolic without his command, nor any papal letter to be received that had not been shown to him; no synod might make any enactment that he had not sanctioned and previously ordained; no ecclesiastical censure was to be pronounced against any of his barons or officers without his consent. All things, temporal and spiritual, depended on his will (Eadmer, Historia Novorum, col. 352). Extending the license that they had received from William, the Danes had not sailed in May 1070; and their appearance at Ely encouraged a revolt of the fen country. They left England in June, but the revolt continued, and was headed by Hereward [q.v.]. In 1071 the rebels held the Isle of Ely, and the revolt, though isolated, became serious. William in person attacked the island with ships and a land force. He reduced it in the course of the year, punished the rebels with mutilation or lifelong imprisonment, fined the monastery of Ely, and caused a castle to be built in its precinct. Early in 1072 he was in Normandy where he held a parliament and addressed an ecclesiastical synod. Returning to England he invaded Scotland, for Malcolm had been ravaging the north, and made his court a refuge for William's enemies. He advanced to Abernethy, where Malcolm did him homage. On his return he founded a castle at Durham and committed it to the bishop to hold against the Scots. The citizens of Le Mans having, after domestic conflicts, called in Fulk, count of Anjou, William in 1073 led an army largely composed of English into Maine, wasted it, received the submission of the city, defended his allies against Fulk, and, having made peace with him, returned to England in 1074. Then he again visited Normandy, apparently leaving Lanfranc as his chief representative in England. During his absence Ralph Guader [q.v.], earl of Norfolk, and Roger, earl of Hereford, conspired against him. Waltheof, who was concerned in the conspiracy, went to William in Normandy, confessed, and asked forgiveness. The rebels were overthrown in the absence of the king, who, returning to England in 1075, found the Danish fleet in the Humber; it had been invited over by the rebels, but after plundering York the Danes sailed off, for they dared not meet the king. William punished those of the rebels that he had in his power, blinding and mutilating the Briton followers of Earl Ralph, and in May 1076 caused Waltheof to be beheaded¾the only capital punishment that he inflicted during his reign. Possibly about this time (Freeman, u. s. p. 609) he laid waste a district in Hampshire extending for thirty miles or more to form the New Forest, in order to gratify his love of hunting, driving away the inhabitants and destroying churches and houses (Flor. Wig. an. 1100; Will. of Malm. iii. c. 275). Hoping to seize Earl Ralph, who had escaped to Brittany, and also to enlarge his dominions, he crossed to Normandy and laid siege to Dol, swearing not to depart until it surrendered; but Philip of France came to the help of Count Alan, and William fled, leaving his camp and much treasure in the hands of the enemy. He made peace with the count, and in 1077 with Philip. About that time his eldest son, Robert (1054?-1134) [q.v.], demanded that Normandy and Maine should be made over to him, and, on William's refusal, rebelled and attempted to seize Rouen, for he had a party in the duchy. William ordered his arrest, but he fled from Normandy; his mother sent him supplies, and William was in consequence highly displeased with her (Ord. Vit. p. 571). With Philip's help Robert established himself at Gerberoi, near Beauvais, and William besieged him there early in 1080. In a skirmish beneath the walls William was unhorsed and wounded in the hand by his son. He raised the siege, and was persuaded by his queen, his lords, and the French king to be reconciled with Robert and his friends. On the murder of Walcher [q.v.], bishop of Durham, he sent Bishop Odo to punish the insurgents, and shortly afterwards sent Robert with an army into Scotland, for Malcolm had again been invading Northumberland. He was in England in 1081, and Robert again quarrelled with him, and finally left him. In that year he made an expedition into Wales, freed many hundred captives there, received the submission of the Welsh princes, and is said to have made a pilgrimage to St. David's (A.-S. Chron. an. 1081; Hen. of Hunt. p. 207; Ann. Cambr. an. 1079). William was again in Normandy in 1082, when he heard that his brother Odo, to whom he had committed the regency in England during his late frequent visits to the duchy, was about to make an expedition into Italy. He crossed in haste, caught him in the Isle of Wight, and, having gathered his lords, laid before them his complaints against Odo, accusing him of oppression and misgovernment in his absence and of a design to lead abroad forces needed for the defence of the kingdom. He caused him to be arrested, and, when Odo objected that he was a clerk, replied that he was not arresting a bishop but one of his earls whom he had made his viceroy; he kept him in prison until his own death was near, in spite of the remonstrances of the pope (Ord. Vit. p. 647; Monumenta Gregoriana, pp. 518, 570). He returned to Normandy, where in 1083 died his queen Matilda, for whom he mourned deeply. An insurrection in Maine, headed by Hubert de Beaumont, caused him trouble. He personally led an army against Hubert's castle, but left the war to be prosecuted by his lords, who carried it on for three years without success. Cnut, or Canute the Saint, king of Denmark, threatened to invade England in 1085. William gathered a force to meet him, crossed to England, and, quartering his soldiers on his vassals, wasted the coasts, that the Danes might find no sustenance on landing. The invasion was not made, and William dismissed part of his force, keeping some part with him during the winter. After much discussion with his lords at a court that he held at Gloucester at Christmas, he ordered a survey of his kingdom. This survey, the object of which seems to have been to ascertain and apportion every landholder's liability with respect to taxation and military service, caused much indignation among the English; its results are embodied in Domesday book. William remained in England, held his courts according to custom at Easter 1086 at Winchester, and at Whitsuntide at Westminster, apparently travelled about the kingdom, and on 1 Aug. at a great assembly at Salisbury required that all men, whether holding immediately of the crown or of a mesne lord, should do fealty to him. All present at the assembly, ‘whose men soever they were,’ did so. The doctrine thus established, that the fealty owed to the king could not be overridden by an obligation to any inferior lord, saved England from the worst evils of feudalism. William heavily fined all against whom he could bring any charge, true or false; stayed in the Isle of Wight while the money was being collected, and then sailed off with it to Normandy. A long-standing dispute as to the right to the French Vexin came to a head in 1087, when the French garrison in Mantes committed some ravages in the duke's dominions. William, who had become unwieldy through fat, was at Rouen seeking to reduce his bulk by medicine. Hearing that Philip had compared him to a woman in childbed, he swore his special oath, ‘by the splendour and resurrection of God,’ that he would light a hundred thousand candles when he went to his churching mass. He invaded the Vexin in August, ravaged the land, entered Mantes on the 15th, and burnt it. As he rode through the town his horse threw him forward in the saddle, and he received an internal injury. He was carried to Rouen, and was taken from his palace to the priory of St. Gervase for the sake of quiet. There he was attended by his bishops, sent for Anselm [q.v.], who was unable to go to him, repented of his sins, and ordered that his treasure should be distributed between the poor and churches. He directed that Robert should succeed him in Normandy; expressed his wish that his son William, who was with him, might succeed him in England; left Henry, who was also with him, a sum of money; and ordered that his prisoners should be released. He died on 9 Sept. His lords forthwith rode off to defend their lands from plunder, and his servants, after seizing all they could find, left his body uncared for. A knight named Herlwin had it borne to Caen and buried in St. Stephen's, the Conqueror's own church. The ceremony was interrupted by a claim made to the land on which the church was built, and William's son Henry and the bishops present satisfied the claimant's demand. The monument raised by William Rufus to his father was destroyed by the Huguenots in 1562, and the king's bones were scattered. A later tomb was destroyed in 1793, when the last bone left was lost (Freeman, u. s. pp. 721-3). William was of middle height and great muscular strength; in later life he became very fat; he had a stern countenance, and the front of his head was bald. His demeanour was stately and his court splendid. He was a man of iron will and remarkable genius; no consideration could divert him from the pursuit of his aims, and he was unscrupulous as to the means he employed to attain them. In a large degree his achievements were due to himself alone. Despised in his youth by the proud and restless barons of his duchy, he compelled their obedience and respect, became stronger than his neighbours, extended his dominions by policy and war, conquered a kingdom far richer and larger than his duchy, forced its people to live quietly and orderly under his rule, and, dying a powerful sovereign, left his dominions in peace to his sons. He was religious, was regular in devotion and liberal to monasteries; he fulfilled his vow by building Battle Abbey, which was not finished at his death; he made no gain out of the church, promoted many worthy ecclesiastics, and was blameless in his private life. Though not delighting in cruelty, he was callous to human suffering. In addition to his two signal acts of cruelty, the devastation of the north and the making of the New Forest, he oppressed his conquered people with heavy taxes and brought much misery upon them. While affable to those who gave him no offence, he was stern beyond bounds to those who withstood his will, was merciless in his punishments, and though, with one exception, he took no man's life by sentence of law, inflicted blinding and shameful mutilation with terrible frequency, especially on men of the lower class. Loving ‘the tall deer as though he had been their father,’ he decreed that all who slew deer should be blinded; his forest laws troubled rich as well as poor, ‘but he recked not of the hatred of them all, for they needs must obey his will, if they would have life, or land, or goods, or even his peace.’ His rule was strict, and he put down all disorder with a strong hand. That he had at one time some desire to govern the English justly may be inferred from an attempt he made to learn their language; but his conquest brought temptations, his character seems to have deteriorated as he met with resistance, and, though he was always ready to allow his own will to override justice, he became more tyrannical as he grew older. He amassed great riches by oppression and became avaricious (for his character generally, see A.-S. Chron. an. 1066). Like all his race, he was addicted to legal subtleties; his oppression generally wore the garb of legality, and was for that reason specially grinding. Adopting the character of the lawful successor of the Confessor, he maintained English laws and institutions, continuing, for example, the three annual courts of the earlier kings; but he gave these courts, and indeed all the higher machinery of government and administration, a feudal character, though he kept English feudalism in subordination to the power of the crown (for his use of legal fictions in dealing with English lands, see Freeman, iv. 8-9, v. 15-51). Nor does his surname, ‘the Conqueror,’ used by Orderic [see Ordericus Vitalis], prove that he laid stress on the fact that he gained and held England by the sword, for the term at that time signified ‘an acquirer’ or, in legal phraseology, ‘a purchaser.’ He is generally called ‘the Bastard’ by contemporary writers, and after the accession of William Rufus is often distinguished from him by being called ‘the Great’ (ib. u.s. ii. 531-3). His laws in their fuller form (Thorpe, Laws, p. 490) cannot be accepted as genuine, but the short version printed by Bishop Stubbs (Select Charters, p. 80), and given with some variations by Hoveden (ii. 216), apparently represents enactments made by him on different occasions, and his confirmation of Canute's law and his regulation of appeals (Thorpe, p. 489) are most probably genuine (see Stubbs's Pref. to Rog. Hov. p. ii, Rolls Ser.). Hoveden, apparently on the authority of Ranulf de Glanville [q.v.], says that in the fourth year of his reign William caused twelve men from each shire to declare on oath the customs of the kingdom. There seems no reason to reject this tradition, though the pretended results of the inquest cannot be accepted as genuine [for William's children, see under Matilda, d. 1083]. Assertions that he had any illegitimate children or was unfaithful to his wife lack historical basis. Sources: The life of William is exhaustively related in Freeman's Norman Conquest, vols. ii. iii. iv., with which should be read Bishop Stubbs's Const. Hist. i. cc. 9, 11, and reference may be made to Palgrave's brilliant, though not always trustworthy, Normandy and England, vol. iii.; Lappenberg's England under Norman Kings, transl. by Thorpe, and parts of M. de Crozal's Lanfranc. The principal original authorities are: Will. of Poitiers, the Conqueror's chaplain, ed. Giles, violently anti-English, ending about 1067; Will. of Jumièges, ed. Duchesne, though much of lib. vii. is the work of Robert of Torigni, after 1135; A.-S. Chron. ed. Plummer. For the battle of Hastings: the Bayeux tapestry; Guy of Amiens ap. Mon. Hist. Brit.; the poem of Bishop Baudri, ed. Delisle, ap. Mém. de la Société des Antiq. de Normandie, av. 1873, xxviii; a little later come Orderic, ed. Duchesne, and, better, ed. Prévost ap. Société de l'Histoire de France; Geoffrey Gaimar's French Poem (Chron. Anglo-Norm. vol. i.); Flor. Wig.; Eadmer's Hist. Nov., ed. Migne; Will. of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum (Rolls Ser.); Sym. Dunelm. (Rolls Ser.); Wace's Roman de Rou (temp. Hen. II), ed. Andresen Contributor: W. H. [William Hunt] Published: 1900 William I (Old Norman: Williame I; circa 1028[1] - 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes as William the Bastard, was the first Norman King of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087. Descended from Viking raiders, he had been Duke of Normandy since 1035 under the title of William II. After a long struggle to establish his power, by 1060 his hold on Normandy was secure, and he launched the Norman conquest of England in 1066. The rest of his life was marked by struggles to consolidate his hold over England and his continental lands and by difficulties with his eldest son. William was the son of the unmarried Robert I, Duke of Normandy by his mistress Herleva. His illegitimate status and his youth caused some difficulties for him after he succeeded his father, as did the anarchy that plagued the first years of his rule. During his childhood and adolescence, members of the Norman aristocracy battled each other, both for control of the child duke and for their own ends. In 1047 William was able to quash a rebellion and begin to establish his authority over the duchy, a process that was not complete until about 1060. His marriage in the 1050s to Matilda of Flanders provided him with a powerful ally in the neighbouring county of Flanders. By the time of his marriage, William was able to arrange the appointments of his supporters as bishops and abbots in the Norman church. His consolidation of power allowed him to expand his horizons, and by 1062 William was able to secure control of the neighbouring county of Maine. In the 1050s and early 1060s William became a contender for the throne of England, then held by his childless relative Edward the Confessor. There were other potential claimants, including the powerful English earl Harold Godwinson, who was named the next king by Edward on the latter's deathbed in January 1066. William argued that Edward had previously promised the throne to him, and that Harold had sworn to support William's claim. William built a large fleet and invaded England in September 1066, decisively defeating and killing Harold at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066. After further military efforts William was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066, in London. He made arrangements for the governance of England in early 1067 before returning to Normandy. Several unsuccessful rebellions followed, but by 1075 William's hold on England was mostly secure, allowing him to spend the majority of the rest of his reign on the Continent. William's final years were marked by difficulties in his continental domains, troubles with his eldest son, and threatened invasions of England by the Danes. In 1086 William ordered the compilation of the Domesday Book, a survey listing all the landholders in England along with their holdings. William died in September 1087 while leading a campaign in northern France, and was buried in Caen. His reign in England was marked by the construction of castles, the settling of a new Norman nobility on the land, and change in the composition of the English clergy. He did not try to integrate his various domains into one empire, but instead continued to administer each part separately. William's lands were divided after his death: Normandy went to his eldest son, Robert, and his second surviving son, William, received England. Background Norsemen first began raiding in what became Normandy in the late 8th century. Permanent Scandinavian settlement occurred before 911, when an agreement was reached between Rollo, one of the Viking leaders, and King Charles the Simple of France, surrendering the county of Rouen to Rollo. The lands around Rouen became the core of the later duchy of Normandy. Normandy may have been used as a base when Scandinavian attacks on England were renewed at the end of the 10th century, which would have worsened relations between England and Normandy. In an effort to improve matters, King Æthelred the Unready took Emma of Normandy, sister of Duke Richard II, as his second wife in 1002. Danish raids on England continued and Æthelred sought help from Richard, taking refuge in Normandy in 1013 when King Swein I of Denmark drove Æthelred and his family from England. Swein's death in 1014 allowed Æthelred to return home, but Swein's son Cnut contested Æthelred's return. Æthelred died unexpectedly in 1016 and Cnut became king of England. Æthelred and Emma's two sons, Edward and Alfred, went into exile in Normandy while their mother, Emma, became Cnut's second wife. After Cnut's death in 1035 the English throne fell to Harold Harefoot, his son by his first wife, while Harthacnut, his son by Emma, became king in Denmark. England remained unstable. Alfred returned to England in 1036 to visit his mother and perhaps challenge Harold as king. One story implicates Earl Godwin of Wessex in Alfred's subsequent death, but others blame Harold. Emma went into exile in Flanders until Harthacnut became king following Harold's death in 1040, and his half-brother Edward followed Harthacnut to England; Edward was proclaimed king after Harthacnut's death in June 1042. Early life William was born in 1027 or 1028 at Falaise, Normandy, probably towards the end of the latter year. He was the only son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, son of Duke Richard II. His mother, Herleva, was the daughter of Fulbert of Falaise; Fulbert may have been a tanner or embalmer. She was possibly a member of the ducal household, but did not marry Robert. Instead, she later married Herluin de Conteville, with whom she had two sons - Odo of Bayeux and Robert, Count of Mortain - and a daughter whose name is unknown.[e] One of Herleva's brothers, Walter, became a supporter and protector of William during his minority. Robert also had a daughter, Adelaide of Normandy, by another mistress. Robert, William's father, became Duke of Normandy on 6 August 1027, in succession to his elder brother Richard III, who had only succeeded to the title the previous year. Robert and his brother had been at odds over the succession, and Richard's death was very sudden. Robert was accused by some writers of killing his brother, a plausible but now unprovable charge. Conditions in Normandy were unsettled, as noble families despoiled the Church and Alan III of Brittany waged war against the duchy, possibly in an attempt to take control. By 1031 Robert had gathered considerable support from noblemen, many of whom would become prominent during William's life. They included Robert's uncle, Robert the archbishop of Rouen, who had originally opposed the duke, Osbern, a nephew of Gunnor the wife of Duke Richard I, and Count Gilbert of Brionne, a grandson of Richard I. After his accession, Robert continued Norman support for the English princes Edward and Alfred, who were still in exile in northern France. There are indications that Robert may have been briefly betrothed to a daughter of King Cnut, but no marriage took place. It is unclear if William would have been supplanted in the ducal succession if Robert had had a legitimate son. Earlier dukes had been illegitimate, and William's association with his father on ducal charters appears to indicate that William was considered Robert's most likely heir. In 1034 Duke Robert decided to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Although some of his supporters tried to dissuade him from undertaking the journey, Robert convened a council in January 1035 and had the assembled Norman magnates swear fealty to William as his heir before leaving for Jerusalem. He died in early July at Nicea, on his way back to Normandy. Duke of Normandy William faced several challenges on becoming duke, including his illegitimate birth and his youth: the evidence indicates that he was either seven or eight years old at the time. He enjoyed the support of his great-uncle, Archbishop Robert, as well as the king of France, Henry I, enabling him to succeed to his father's duchy. The support given to the exiled English princes in their attempt to return to England in 1036 shows that the new duke's guardians were attempting to continue his father's policies, but Archbishop Robert's death in March 1037 removed one of William's main supporters, and conditions in Normandy quickly descended into chaos. The anarchy in the duchy lasted until 1047, and control of the young duke was one of the priorities of those contending for power. At first, Alan of Brittany had custody of the duke, but when Alan died in either late 1039 or October 1040, Gilbert of Brionne took charge of William. Gilbert was killed within months, and another guardian, Turchetil, was also killed around the time of Gilbert's death. Yet another guardian, Osbern, was slain in the early 1040s in William's chamber while the duke slept. It was said that Walter, William's maternal uncle, was occasionally forced to hide the young duke in the houses of peasants, although this story may be an embellishment by Orderic Vitalis. The historian Eleanor Searle speculates that William was raised with the three cousins who later became important in his career - William fitzOsbern, Roger de Beaumont, and Roger of Montgomery. Although many of the Norman nobles engaged in their own private wars and feuds during William's minority, the viscounts still acknowledged the ducal government, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy was supportive of William. King Henry continued to support the young duke, but in late 1046 opponents of William came together in a rebellion centred in lower Normandy, led by Guy of Burgundy with support from Nigel, Viscount of the Cotentin, and Ranulf, Viscount of the Bessin. According to stories that may have legendary elements, an attempt was made to seize William at Valognes, but he escaped under cover of darkness, seeking refuge with King Henry. In early 1047 Henry and William returned to Normandy and were victorious at the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes near Caen, although few details of the actual fighting are recorded. William of Poitiers claimed that the battle was won mainly through William's efforts, but earlier accounts claim that King Henry's men and leadership also played an important part. William assumed power in Normandy, and shortly after the battle promulgated the Truce of God throughout his duchy, in an effort to limit warfare and violence by restricting the days of the year on which fighting was permitted. Although the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes marked a turning point in William's control of the duchy, it was not the end of his struggle to gain the upper hand over the nobility. The period from 1047 to 1054 saw almost continuous warfare, with lesser crises continuing until 1060. Consolidation of power William's next efforts were against Guy of Burgundy, who retreated to his castle at Brionne, which William besieged. After a long effort, the duke succeeded in exiling Guy in 1050. To address the growing power of the Count of Anjou, Geoffrey Martel, William joined with King Henry in a campaign against him, the last known cooperation between the two. They succeeded in capturing an Angevin fortress, but accomplished little else. Geoffrey attempted to expand his authority into the county of Maine, especially after the death of Hugh IV of Maine in 1051. Central to the contr | William I 'the Conqueror' King of England (I1423)
|
| 1643 | William I (1020 - 12 November 1087), called the Great (le Grand or Tête Hardie, "the Rash"), was Count of Burgundy from 1057 to 1087 and Mâcon from 1078 to 1087. He was a son of Renaud I and Alice of Normandy, daughter of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. William was the father of several notable children, including Pope Callixtus II. In 1057, he succeeded his father and reigned over a territory larger than that of the Franche-Comté itself. In 1087, he died in Besançon and was buried there in the cathedral of St John. William married a woman named Stephanie. They had many children: Renaud II, William's successor, died on First Crusade Stephen I, successor to Renaud II, Stephen died on the Crusade of 1101 Raymond, married (1090) Urraca, the reigning queen of Castile Guy of Vienne, elected pope, in 1119 at the Abbey of Cluny. as Calixtus II Sybilla (or Maud), married (1080) Eudes I of Burgundy Gisela of Burgundy, married (1090) Humbert II of Savoy and then Renier I of Montferrat William Eudes Hugh III, Archbishop of Besançon Clementia married Robert II, Count of Flanders and was Regent, during his absence. She married secondly Godfrey I, Count of Leuven and was possibly the mother of Joscelin of Louvain. Stephanie married Lambert, Prince de Royans (died 1119) Ermentrude, married (1065) Theodoric I (perhaps) Bertha wife of Alphonso VI of Castile and maybe another daughter | William I Count of Burgundy (I5023)
|
| 1644 | William I (c. 1167, The Hague - 4 February 1222), Count of Holland from 1203 to 1222. He was the younger son of Floris III and Ada of Huntingdon. Life William was raised in Scotland. He started a revolt against his brother, Dirk VII and became count in Friesland after a reconciliation. Friesland was considered as a part of Holland by the Counts of Holland. His niece, Ada, Countess of Holland inherited Holland in 1203, but William couldn't accept this. After a civil war (part of the Hook and Cod Wars), which lasted for several years, William won the war. Louis and Ada were supported by the bishop of Liège and bishop of Utrecht, and the count of Flanders. William was supported by the duke of Brabant and by the majority of the Hollanders. Emperor Otto IV acknowledged him as count of Holland in 1203, because he was a supporter of the Welfs. He and many others changed allegiance to emperor Frederick II after the battle of Bouvines in 1214. He took part in a French expedition against king John of England. The pope excommunicated him for this. Possibly because of this, William then became a fervent crusader. He campaigned in Prussia and joined in the conquest of Alcácer do Sal. In Europe, he came to be called William the Crazy for his chivalric and reckless behaviour in battle. William conquered the city of Damietta during the Fifth Crusade. Evolution of the county There were great changes in the landscape of Holland in the end of the 12th and during the 13th century. Many colonists bought land to turn the swamps into polders. Most of the swamps had been sold, and irrigation had started during the reign of William. Huge infrastructural works were done; the island called Grote Waard was enclosed with dikes all around and a dam was built at Spaarndam. New governmental bodies were created, the so-called water boards, which were charged with the task of protecting the polders against ever-present threat of flooding. Count William granted city rights to Geertruidenberg in 1213, to Dordrecht in 1217, to Middelburg in 1220 and perhaps also to Leiden. In this way he gave an impulse to trade. Family Count William was married twice. First, he was married in 1197 at Stavoren to Adelaide of Guelders, daughter of Otto I, Count of Guelders and Richarde of Bavaria. Adelaide died on 12 February 1218 while William was away on crusade. On his return he married secondly, in July 1220, Marie of Brabant, daughter of Henry I, Duke of Brabant and Maud of Boulogne and Alsace. She was the widow of Emperor Otto IV. William and his first wife Adelaide had the following children: Floris IV, Count of Holland (24 June 1210 The Hague-19 July 1234, Corbie, France). Otto (d. 1249), Regent of Holland in 1238-1239, Bishop of Utrecht. William (d. 1238), Regent of Holland in 1234-1238. Richardis (d. 1262). Ada (d. 1258), Abbess at Rijnsburg 1239. | William I Count of Holland (I5308)
|
| 1645 | William I (c. 950 - 993, after 29 August), called the Liberator, was Count of Provence from 968 to his abdication. In 975 or 979, he took the title of marchio or margrave. He is often considered the founder of the county of Provence. He and his elder brother Rotbold II were sons of Boso II of Arles and Constance of Viennois, daughter of Charles-Constantine. They both carried the title of comes or count concurrently, but it is unknown if they were joint-counts of the whole of Provence or if the region was divided. His brother never bore any other title than count so long as William lived, so the latter seems to have attained a certain supremacy. In 980, he was installed as Count of Arles. His sobriquet comes from his victories against the Saracens by which he liberated Provence from their threat, which had been constant since the establishment of a base at Fraxinet. At the Battle of Tourtour in 973, with the assistance of the counts of the High Alps and the viscounts of Marseille and Fos, he definitively routed the Saracens, chasing them forever from Provence. He reorganised the region east of the Rhône, which he conquered from the Saracens and which had been given him as a gift from King Conrad of Burgundy. Also by royal consent, he and his descendants controlled the fisc in Provence. With Isarn, Bishop of Grenoble, he repopulated Dauphiné and settled an Italian count named Ugo Blavia near Fréjus in 970 in order to bring that land back to cultivation. For all this, he figures prominently in Ralph Glaber's chronicle with the title of dux and he appears in a charter of 992 as pater patriae. He donated land to Cluny and retired to become a monk, dying at Avignon, where he was buried in the church of Saint-Croix at Sarrians. He was succeeded as margrave by his brother. His great principality began to diminish soon after his death as the castles of his vassals, which he had kept carefully under ducal control, soon became allods of their possessors. Marriage and issue He married 1st Arsenda, daughter of Arnold of Comminges and their son was: William II of Provence He married 2nd (against papal advice) in 984, Adelaide-Blanche of Anjou, daughter of Fulk II of Anjou and Gerberga, and their daughter was: Constance of Arles (986-1034), married Robert II of France. | William I of Provence (I5662)
|
| 1646 | William I, Count of Hainaut (c. 1286 - 7 June 1337) was Count William III of Avesnes, Count William III of Holland and Count William II of Zeeland from 1304 to his death. He was the son of John II, Count of Hainaut and Philippa of Luxembourg. William was originally not expected to become count, but due to the death of his elder brothers, John (killed at Kortrijk in the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302) and Henry (d. 1303), he became heir to his father's counties. Prior to becoming count, he was defeated by Guy of Namur at the battle on the island of Duiveland in 1304. Guy and Duke John II of Brabant then conquered most of Zeeland and Holland, but these territories were recovered again when William became the new count in the same year. William continued the war with Flanders until the Peace of Paris in 1323, during which the Count of Flanders denounced all claims on Zeeland. William had occupied most of the Bishopric of Utrecht and tried to conquer Friesland but was repelled by Hessel Martena. Many of his daughters married with important rulers of Europe and he was called the father in law of Europe. The King of England and the Holy Roman Emperor were married to his daughters, while he was married to the sister of the King of France. In spite of this, as an ally of the English King, he tried to gain support of surrounding counties and duchies for an anti-French coalition. Internally, William restored order and founded new institutions, like the treasury and the chancellory. The council of the count got more responsibilities. Family He married Joan of Valois, sister of the future king Philip VI of France, in 1305 and had the following children: William II, Count of Hainaut (1307-1345) John (died 1316) Margaret II, Countess of Hainaut (1311-1356), married Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor Philippa of Hainault (1311-1369), married King Edward III of England Agnes (died 1327) Joanna of Hainaut (1315-1374), married William V, Duke of Jülich Isabelle of Hainaut (1323-1361), married Robert of Namur Louis (1325-1328) | William I Count of Hainaut (I5244)
|
| 1647 | William II de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey was the son of William I de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey and Gundreda. He married Elizabeth de Vermandois, daughter of Hugh de Crépi, Comte de Vermandois et de Valois and Aelis de Vermandois, Comtesse de Vermandois, after 5 June 1118. He succeeded to the title of 2nd Earl of Surrey [E., 1088] in 1088. William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey (died 1138) was the son of William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey and his first wife Gundred. He is more often referred to as Earl Warenne or Earl of Warenne than as Earl of Surrey. In January 1091, William assisted Hugh of Grantmesnil (d.1094) in his defense of Courcy against the forces of Robert de Belleme and Duke Robert. Sometime around 1093 he tried to marry Matilda (or Edith), daughter of king Malcolm III of Scotland. She instead married Henry I of England, and this may be the cause of William's great dislike of Henry I, which was to be his apparent motivator in the following years. He accompanied Robert Curthose (Duke Robert) in his 1101 invasion of England, and afterwards lost his English lands and titles and was exiled to Normandy. There he complained to Curthose that he expended great effort on the duke's behalf and had in return lost most of his possessions. Curthose's return to England in 1103 was apparently made to convince his brother to restore William's earldom. This was successful, though Curthose had to give up all he had received after the 1101 invasion, and subsequently William was loyal to Henry. To further insure William's loyalty Henry considered marrying him to one of his many illegitimate daughters. He was however dissuaded by Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury, for any of the daughters would have been within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. The precise nature of the consanguineous relationship Anselm had in mind has been much debated, but it is most likely he was referring to common descent from the father of duchess Gunnor. William was one of the commanders on Henry's side (against Robert Curthose) at the Battle of Tinchebray in 1106. Afterwards, with his loyalty thus proven, he became more prominent in Henry's court. In 1110, Curthose's son William Clito escaped along with Helias of Saint-Saens, and afterwards Warenne received the forfeited Saint-Saens lands, which were very near his own in upper Normandy. By this maneuver king Henry further assured his loyalty, for the successful return of Clito would mean at the very least Warenne's loss of this new territory. He fought at the Battle of Bremule in 1119, and was at Henry's deathbed in 1135. William's death is recorded as 11-May-1138 in the register of Lewes priory and he was buried with his father at the chapter-house there. Family In 1118 William acquired the royal-blooded bride he desired when he married Elizabeth de Vermandois. She was a daughter of count Hugh of Vermandois, a son of Henry I of France, and was the widow of Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester. By Elizabeth he had three sons and two daughters: William de Warenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey; Reginald de Warenne, who inherited his father's property in upper Normandy, including the castles of Bellencombre and Mortemer He married Adeline, daughter of William, lord of Wormgay in Norfolk, by whom he had a son William (founder of the priory of Wormegay), whose daughter and sole heir Beatrice married first Dodo, lord Bardolf, and secondly Hubert de Burgh; Reginald was one of the persecutors of Archbishop Thomas in 1170. Ralph de Warenne Gundred de Warenne, who married first Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick, and second William, lord of Kendal, and is most remembered for expelling king Stephen's garrison from Warwick Castle; Ada de Warenne, who married Henry of Scotland, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon who made many grants to the priory of Lewes. WARENNE or WARREN, WILLIAM de, second Earl of Surrey (d. 1138), elder son of William de Warenne (d. 1088) [q. v.], by his wife Gundrada [q. v.], succeeded his father as earl of Surrey in 1088, and is frequently described as ‘Willelmus comes de Warenna’ (see Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 321). In January 1091 he helped Hugh (d. 1094) [q. v.] of Grantmesnil to defend Courcy against Robert de Bellême [q. v.] and Duke Robert (Orderic, p. 692). About 1093-4 he sought to marry Matilda (1080-1118) [q. v.], or Edith, daughter of Malcolm III [q. v.], king of Scots, who married Henry I. This marriage may have been at the bottom of the earl's hatred of Henry; he mocked at the king's love of hunting and called him ‘Harts-foot’ [see Henry I], and in 1101 shared in inciting Duke Robert to invade England (Orderic, p. 785). He joined Robert on his landing. He was disinherited, and accompanied the duke back to Normandy (ib. p. 788). The duke's visit to England in 1103 is said to have been made at the instigation of the earl, who prayed Robert to intercede for him that he might be restored to his earldom, saying that it brought him in a revenue of 1,000l. Henry restored him, and from that time he was the king's faithful adherent and trusted friend (ib. pp. 804-5). Henry contemplated giving him one of his natural daughters in marriage, but was dissuaded by Anselm [q. v.], who urged that the earl and the lady were within the prohibited degrees, the earl being in the fourth and the king's daughter in the sixth generation (Anselm, Epistolæ, iv. 84; Anselm's reckoning would match the descent assigned to William de Warenne (d. 1088) [q. v.] as great-grandson of the father of Gunnor). At the battle of Tinchebray in 1106 the earl commanded the third division of the king's army, and when the castle of Elias de St. Saens on the Varenne was taken in 1108 Henry gave it to him. He fought in the battle of Brenneville, or Brémule, on 20 Aug. 1119, and is said to have encouraged the king in his determination to take a personal share in the combat (Orderic, pp. 853-4). He was with the king at his death at the castle of Lions on 1 Dec. 1135, and was appointed governor of Rouen and the district of Caux by the chief men of the duchy (ib. p. 901). In 1136 he attended the court held by Stephen at Westminster, and subsequently attested the king's charter of liberties at Oxford (Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, pp. 262-3). He is said to have died in that year (Rob. de Torigni, a. 1136); but as he was alive in 1137-for in that year his son, William de Warenne III [q. v.], was styled ‘juvenis’ (Orderic, p. 910)-it is safe to accept the authority of the manuscript register of Lewes priory (f. 105), which dates his death 11 May 1138. He was buried with his father in the chapter-house of Lewes. He married the beautiful Elizabeth, or Isabel, daughter of Hugh the Great, count of Vermandois, a son of Henry I of France, and widow of Robert de Beaumont (d. 1118) [q. v.], count of Meulan, from whom he carried her off while Robert was still living, though she was the mother of eight children (Hen. Hunt. De Contemptu Mundi, sect. 8). She died on 13 Feb. 1131, and was buried at Lewes. By her he had three sons and two daughters, William de Warenne (d. 1148) [q. v.], Reginald, and Ralph (for Ralph see Monasticon, v. 15; the editors are mistaken in heading Charter No. xi., in which the grantor speaks of Ralph ‘frater meus,’ as given by William de Warenne (d. 1138), as may be seen by the teste, one of the witnesses being Ascelin, bishop of Rochester, who was not consecrated until 1142; the charter was therefore given by William de Warenne (d. 1148), and Ralph was his brother). Reginald was assured in the possession of the castles of Bellencombre and Mortemer by the agreement made between Stephen and Duke Henry (Henry II) in 1153, the rest of the Warenne inheritance passing to Stephen's son William (d. 1159) (Fœdera, i. 18); Reginald was one of the persecutors of Archbishop Thomas in 1170, and became a wealthy baron by his marriage with Adeline or Alice, daughter and sole heir of William de Wormegay in Norfolk (Watson, i. 67, following Camden, Britannia, col. 393, ed. Gibson, maintains that the lord of Wormegay was Reginald, son of William de Warenne, d. 1088, because in Reginald's charter to St. Mary Overy, Southwark-Monasticon, vi. 171-he speaks of ‘Isabella comitissa domina mea’ as a different person from his mother, but the Isabella of the charter was doubtless the grantor's niece, the daughter of William de Warenne, d. 1148). By Adeline Reginald had a son William, who founded the priory of Wormegay (ib. vi. 591), and left as his sole heir his daughter Beatrice, who married (1) Dodo, lord Bardolf, and (2) Hubert de Burgh [q. v.], earl of Kent. Earl William's two daughters were Gundrada, who married (1) Roger de Beaumont, earl of Warwick, and in 1153 expelled Stephen's garrison from the castle of Warwick and surrendered it to Henry; and (2) William, called Lancaster, baron of Kendal, and, it is said, a third husband; and Ada or Adeline, who in 1139 married Henry of Scotland [q. v.], son of David I. He made many grants to the priory of Lewes, and was regarded as its second founder (Manuscript Register of Lewes; Sir G. Duckett, Charters and Records of Cluni), completed the foundation of the priory of Castle Acre begun by his father, and made grants to the abbey of Grestein in Normandy and to the ‘infirm brethren’ of Bellencombre (Monasticon, vi. 1113). Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 59 | de Warenne, William 2nd Earl of Surrey II (I2726)
|
| 1648 | William III (915 - 3 April 963), called Towhead (French: Tête d'étoupe, Latin: Caput Stupe) from the colour of his hair, was the "Count of the Duchy of Aquitaine" from 959 and Duke of Aquitaine from 962 to his death. He was also the Count of Poitou (as William I) from 935 and Count of Auvergne from 950. The primary sources for his reign are Ademar of Chabannes, Dudo of Saint-Quentin, and William of Jumièges. William was son of Ebalus Manzer and Emilienne. He was born in Poitiers. He claimed the Duchy of Aquitaine from his father's death, but the royal chancery did not recognise his ducal title until the year before his own death. Shortly after the death of King Rudolph in 936, he was constrained to forfeit some land to Hugh the Great by Louis IV. He did it with grace, but his relationship with Hugh thenceforward deteriorated. In 950, Hugh was reconciled with Louis and granted the duchies of Burgundy and Aquitaine. He tried to conquer Aquitaine with Louis's assistance, but William defeated them. Lothair, Louis's successor, feared the power of William. In August 955 he joined Hugh to besiege Poitiers, which resisted successfully. William, however, gave battle and was routed. After the death of Hugh, his son Hugh Capet was named duke of Aquitaine, but he never tried to take up his fief, as William reconciled with Lothair. He was given the abbey of Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand, which remained in his house after his death. He also built a library in the palace of Poitiers. Family background, marriage and issue His father was duke Ebles Manzer, who already was a man in his middle years when he was born in about 913. According to the chronicle of Ademar de Chabannes, his mother was daughter of Rollo of Normandy. On the other hand, the less reliable Dodo has William III himself to marry in about 936 a daughter of Rollo. The lady (more likely his mother) was Geirlaug, in gallic usage Gerloc. William III married a lady named or renamed Adèle, perhaps about 936, which might have been a match arranged by William I of Normandy for him. With his wife Adèle, he had at least one child whose filiation is clearly attested: William, his successor in Aquitaine. He abdicated to the abbey of Saint-Cyprien in Poitiers and left the government to his son. Many genealogies accept the high likelihood that their daughter was: Adelaide, who married Hugh Capet But her parentage is not reliably testimonied in documentation of their epoch, instead it is regarded only as a good possibility by usual modern genealogical literature. Guillaume III, Duc d'Aquitaine was born circa 915. He is the son of Ebalus, Duc d'Aquitaine. He married Adele de Normandie, daughter of Rollo Ragnvaldsson, 1st Duc de Normandie and Poppa of Normandy de Valois, in 935. Guillaume III, Duc d'Aquitaine also went by the nick-name of William 'Towhead'. He was a member of the House of Poitiers. He succeeded to the title of Duc d'Aquitaine in 934. He gained the title of Comte de Poitou. William III (915 - 3 April 963), called Towhead (French: Tête d'étoupe, Latin: Caput Stupe) from the colour of his hair, was the "Count of the Duchy of Aquitaine" from 959 and Duke of Aquitaine from 962 to his death. He was also the Count of Poitou (as William I) from 935 and Count of Auvergne from 950. The primary sources for his reign are Ademar of Chabannes, Dudo of Saint-Quentin, and William of Jumièges. William was son of Ebalus Manzer and Emilienne. He was born in Poitiers. He claimed the Duchy of Aquitaine from his father's death, but the royal chancery did not recognise his ducal title until the year before his own death. Shortly after the death of King Rudolph in 936, he was constrained to forfeit some land to Hugh the Great by Louis IV. He did it with grace, but his relationship with Hugh thenceforward deteriorated. In 950, Hugh was reconciled with Louis and granted the duchies of Burgundy and Aquitaine. He tried to conquer Aquitaine with Louis's assistance, but William defeated them. Lothair, Louis's successor, feared the power of William. In August 955 he joined Hugh to besiege Poitiers, which resisted successfully. William, however, gave battle and was routed. After the death of Hugh, his son Hugh Capet was named duke of Aquitaine, but he never tried to take up his fief, as William reconciled with Lothair. He was given the abbey of Saint-Hilaire-le-Grand, which remained in his house after his death. He also built a library in the palace of Poitiers. Family background, marriage and issue His father was duke Ebles Manzer, who already was a man in his middle years when he was born in about 913. According to the chronicle of Ademar de Chabannes, his mother was daughter of Rollo of Normandy. On the other hand, the less reliable Dodo has William III himself to marry in about 936 a daughter of Rollo. The lady (more likely his mother) was Geirlaug, in gallic usage Gerloc. William III married a lady named or renamed Adèle, perhaps about 936, which might have been a match arranged by William I of Normandy for him. With his wife Adèle, he had at least one child whose filiation is clearly attested: William, his successor in Aquitaine. He abdicated to the abbey of Saint-Cyprien in Poitiers and left the government to his son. Many genealogies accept the high likelihood that their daughter was: Adelaide, who married Hugh Capet But her parentage is not reliably testimonied in documentation of their epoch, instead it is regarded only as a good possibility by usual modern genealogical literature. | William III Duke of Aquitaine (I5273)
|
| 1649 | William III de Ferrers, 5th Earl of Derby (1193 - 28 March 1254) was an English nobleman and head of a family which controlled a large part of Derbyshire including an area known as Duffield Frith. He was born in Derbyshire, England, the son of William de Ferrers, 4th Earl of Derby and Agnes of Chester, a daughter of Hugh of Kevelioc, Earl of Chester and Bertrada de Montfort. He succeeded to the title in 1247, on the death of his father and, after doing homage to King Henry III, he had livery of Chartley Castle and other lands of his mother's inheritance. He had accompanied King Henry to France in 1230 and sat in parliament in London in the same year. He had many favours granted to him by the king, among them the right of free warren in Beaurepair (Belper), Makeney, Winleigh (Windley), Holbrooke, Siward (Southwood near Coxbench), Heyhegh (Heage) Cortelegh (Corkley, in the parish of Muggington), Ravensdale, Holland (Hulland), and many other places, Like his father, he suffered from gout from youth, and always traveled in a litter. He was accidentally thrown from his litter into water, while crossing a bridge, at St Neots, in Huntingdon and although he escaped immediate death, yet he never recovered from the effects of the accident. He died on 28 March 1254, after only seven years, and was succeeded by his son Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby. William de Ferrers is buried at Merevale Abbey, Warwickshire, England. His widow died on 12 March 1280. Family and children William Ferrers married Sibyl Marshal, one of the daughters and co-heirs of William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. They had seven daughters: Agnes Ferrers (died 11 May 1290), married William de Vesci. Isabel Ferrers (died before 26 November 1260), married (1) Gilbert Basset, of Wycombe, and (2) Reginald de Mohun Maud Ferrers (died 12 March 1298), married (1) Simon de Kyme, and (2) William de Vivonia, and (3) Amaury IX of Rochechouart. Sibyl Ferrers, married Sir Francis or Franco de Bohun, an ancestor of Daniel Boone. (it is her aunt Sibyl, sister of William, who married John de Vipont, Lord of Appleby) Joan Ferrers (died 1267), married to: John de Mohun Robert Aguillon Agatha Ferrers (died May 1306), married Hugh Mortimer, of Chelmarsh. Eleanor Ferrers (died 16 October 1274), married to: William de Vaux; Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester; Roger de Leybourne In 1238, he married Margaret de Quincy (born 1218), daughter of Roger de Quincy, 2nd Earl of Winchester and Helen of Galloway. Bizarrely, Margaret was both the stepmother and stepdaughter of William's daughter, Eleanor. The earl and Margaret had the following children: Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby, his successor. He married: Mary de Lusignan, daughter of Hugh XI of Lusignan, Count of Angoulême, and niece of King Henry III, by whom he had no issue; Alianore de Bohun, daughter of Humphrey VI de Bohun and Eleanor de Braose, per Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700 by Frederick Lewis Weis, Lines 57-30 & 68-29. William Ferrers obtained, by gift of Margaret, his mother, the manor of Groby in Leicestershire, assuming the arms of the family of De Quincy. He married: Anne Durward, daughter of Alan Durward;[2] their son was William de Ferrers, 1st Baron Ferrers of Groby. (However Weis, "Ancestral Roots", 2006, line 58 no. 30, has Anne le Despencer, dau. of Hugh le Despencer, 1st Baron Despencer, who was slain at the battle of Evesham) Eleanor, daughter of Matthew Lovaine. Joan Ferrers (died 19 March 1309) married Thomas de Berkeley, 1st Baron Berkeley. Agnes Ferrers married Sir Robert de Muscegros (aka Robert de Musgrove), Lord of Kemerton, Boddington & Deerhurst. Elizabeth Ferrers, married to: William Marshal, 2nd Baron Marshal; Prince Dafydd ap Gruffydd | de Ferrers, William 5th Earl of Derby (I3538)
|
| 1650 | William IV of Toulouse (c. 1040-1094) was Count of Toulouse, Margrave of Provence, and Duke of Narbonne from 1061 to 1094. He succeeded his father Pons of Toulouse upon his death in 1061. His mother was Almodis de la Marche, but she was kidnapped by and subsequently married to Ramon Berenguer I, Count of Barcelona when William was a boy. He was married to Emma of Mortain (daughter of Robert, Count of Mortain and a niece of William of Normandy), who gave him one daughter, Philippa. He also had an illegitimate son, William-Jordan, with his half sister Adelaide. He married twice, and produced two legitimate sons; neither, however, survived infancy, leaving daughter Philippa as his heiress. As Toulouse had no tradition of female inheritance, this raised a question with regard to succession. In 1088, when William departed for the Holy Land, he left his brother, Raymond of Saint-Gilles, to govern in his stead (and, it was later claimed, to succeed him). Within five years, William was dead, and Raymond in a perfect position to take power - although, after Philippa married William IX of Aquitaine, they laid claim to Toulouse and fought, off and on, for years to try to reclaim it from Raymond and his children. He was the great-grandfather of Eleanor of Aquitaine, by his daughter's marriage to William IX of Aquitaine, and Eleanor's descendants would continue to lay nominal claim to Toulouse based on descent from William IV. | William IV Count of Toulouse (I5647)
|