Hastings families of the 12th century: what is known and what
. This two-part article is written by me, Andrew Lancaster, begun
in 2014 with
the hope of assisting genealogical and historical research. But to make
does not simply add to confusion, fellow researchers are asked to
it as a source if they find something new (including new ways
putting things) that they wish to use,
and to include this information when passing on that information to
others (as should be done with all sources). Please also note that
because it is intended to be improved when possible, the text will
change over time, and therefore you should consider recording the date
of accessing it in
your notes. Keeping in mind the aim of informing, rather than
confusing, anyone with constructive feedback and suggestions is
also requested to contact
To jump to the second webpage, click here
It goes into more detail about the Hastings family of Fillongley,
Warwickshire and Ashill, Norfolk, hereditary dapifers of Bury and
holders of the royal office of "naperie". But they are already
discussed below, in part I also.
have had helpful correspondence, but one person in particular who
should be thanked is Rosie Bevan, whose experience and knowledge helped
me improve both webpages.
Aims and methods.
noble English-based Hastings families of the 13th to 15th centuries are
much studied and discussed, but any survey of genealogical
discussions from the first printed books on such matters, right
through until today's internet, shows that the question of their
in the 11th and 12th
centuries is a long-term source of confusion
inevitably slow in such matters, has been real in this case,
but the very intensity of published discussion (now exponentially
increased by the internet) creates its own confusions. Some of the most
respected published authorities writing in the modern era disagree
about basic points, and students of this family therefore find it hard
ascertain what is known, and what is not. It therefore
seemed worthwhile to
to make a new summary of the best evidence and arguments available.
Concerning sourcing for this webpage, there are short in-line
to standard works, and to the small number of key works in the
bibliography. (Any authors or pages numbers appearing without explanation should be traceable there.) There are also some
footnotes where detail would distract. But given
the aims described
above I have tried to be thorough about most sourcing discussions in
the body of the text. Apart from simply trying to explain the latest
ideas and what is most likely, which would just add to the clamour of
theories all over the internet, I have made it
a mission to try to compare and explain the most important publications
of modern authorities, so that their contexts can be understood. For example, an
attempt is made to explain the different reference
numbers used by different authors for the same old documents.
were variable in the 12th century, making identification of
difficult and discussion confusing because different modern authors
have different favourite ways
of referring to people with such flexible names. So for easy
reference, names in bold are the standardized ones used by
Katherine Keats-Rohan for individual entries in her two books Domesday People (DP)
and Domesday Descendants
I have also been able to refer to the related COEL database which gives
more insight into the reasoning behind those two books, and helps compare that reasoning to a broader literature.
starting point for work has been to study the Hastings family of Little
in Essex, and from there, to move towards their relationship (by
marriage it seems) to the Hastings
dapifers of Bury. As will be shown, this second family also had
connections to Warwickshire and Leicestershire. They are the subject of
a more detailed discussion in a second webpage. Not considered are the
"Hasteng" family of Hastings Leamington (also in Warwickshire); the "Hastings or Eton" family of Eaton Hastings
in Berkshire; nor any Sussex Hastings families including the
apparent family found in Sussex and Essex in Domesday (see the second "Willelm de Hastings" in DD), and also the family of "Ingelran de Ou" (DP),
probable sheriff of Hastings itself, whom Keats-Rohan says probably had
descendents with the Hastings surname mentioned in the cartulary of
Ramsey, and possessing land in Huntingdonshire, for example in Gidding
A note for those interested in heraldry. I have placed one of the most simple and famous versions of the Hastings arms here, or a maunch gules (gold background with a red sleeve on it), but it is worth noting what Clark remarked in the 19th century: first, the maunch was apparently not used by the 12th century Hastings barons of Little Easton
(their de Louvain heirs seemed unaware of any arms at all for their Hastings forbears in that barony); and second,
that they look very similar to the de Flamville arms from
Leicestershire, a family which married in the 12th century to the
Hastings family of Warwickshire and Leicestershire. One of the ultimate
aims of the following discussion is to determine what links if any
there were between these two Hastings families.
1. The Barony of Little Easton.
is useful to begin with the Hastings family around whom the most
and confusion in published authorities has centred in the
twentieth century, partly so that we can get past this
subject and make sure that other questions are not forgotten, such as
those which potentially connect the 12th century to the more easily
traceable 13th century. To make it clear, I do fear that interesting subjects are being
forgotten, but we must deal with those which capture the attention first.
The Domesday Book generationThis barony evolved from part of the holdings registered in the Domesday book of 1086 as being held by Walter the deacon.
It is first referred to in the 12th century (around 1177 according to
Clarence Smith p.2) as simply the Barony of Robert de Hastings, but it
came to be named after one of its parts, the Barony of Little Easton. This Easton was sometimes then called Eystan ad Turrim
because there are many places
named something like "Easton" in England, and this one had a tower.
This is in the hundred of
Dunmow in Essex, and was the part of the barony which became its "caput"
(or "head") by the time that such things become tolerably clear. By the
13th century, the Hastings family had been and gone here, replaced by a
branch of the de Louvain family (apparently from Louvain in Belgium) one of whom had married the last Hastings heiress in 1299.
Keats-Rohan names Walter's entry in
her Domesday People,
We can say very
little with any certainty about
Walter, including whether he was Norman or Anglo-Saxon. For
example one argument for him being a Norman, is simply that he held a lot of land
in 1086. (See for example Clark p.121.)
As pointed out to me by Rosie Bevan, another reason he is probably
Norman is his name. Nevertheless, he clearly had strong connections to
some of the local
English families, as can be seen by examining what information we have.
Many Anglo-Saxon families who managed to continue holding lands also
Church connections, something which Normans and Anglos-Saxons shared a
respect for, and as will be seen, this deacon's family (like many
Anglo-Saxon families) had such links.
1086, this Walter
was a reasonably well-endowed tenant-in-chief in Essex and
Suffolk. He also had under-tenancies in that area, as well as
individual manors held "in chief" (directly from the King) in Dorset (Cerne) and Gloucestershire
in Celfledetorn hundred), further away in the
west of south England. Both of these remoter holdings
had been held in 1066 by a man with the
common Anglo-Saxon name of Godwin. Dodwell (p.145) points out that the
barony later included both Sezincote and if not Cerne itself,
Godmanston, 2.5 miles from Cerne and not distinguished in the Domesday
Book. Clarence Smith (p.112) suggests not only that this must have be
the same Godwin in both places, but also that the later name Godmanston
is derived from his name. His reasoning is that the two places
continued to be linked. As late as 19 Edward III, 1345, they were
counted together (Clarence Smith p.1).
Some of Walter's lands belonged, or had belonged, to his brother
named Theodric (or Tedric), who was probably dead before 1086.
This brother may or may not then be the
same as the "antecessor"
of Walter (either ancestor or predecessor) who was called Theodric,
and who was also mentioned in at
least one place in the Domesday accounts, "Weledana" in Stowmarket.
Walter may in other words simply have come to hold the lands of a dead
elder brother. On the other hand Theodric (modern French Thierry,
English Terry, or Derek as Clarence Smith preferred to call him) may
have been the name of younger brother, whose lands Walter held as a
guardian. More complex options are also possible. Walter may indeed
have had two close relatives named Theodric, one younger, one older,
and one being Walter's brother - a father and a brother, or a brother
and a nephew for example. So Clark (p.129)
proposed for Walter not only a more certain brother named Tedric, but also a
less certain father with the same name. And with a different solution
Keats-Rohan suggests that Walter's
more certain brother ("Theodric [ ]" DP)
might be the dead predecessor, who had a less certain son of the same
name who was still alive in 1086. She describes him primarily as the Domesday tenant of Peter de Valognes ("Petrus de Valognes" DP,
Norman) in Saxlingham, alive in 1086 (so either the record is an anachromism for the father, or refers to a son). This idea
apparently derives from Dodwell, but Dodwell's ideas were also
developed by Clarence Smith.
there was a surviving line from Theoderic seems confirmed by the
evidence recited by Dodwell and Clarence Smith. Clarence Smith
(p.113), while questioning the wording of his predecessor Dodwell on
this matter, nevertheless agrees on a basic point which
Keats-Rohan also apparently accepts:
it is unfortunately not true to say that "in Domesday Book the lands
which Theoderic had held were carefully distinguished from those
of his brother," it is true that nothing specifically ascribed to
Theoderic or Derek passed to Walter's descendants; and it would be
legitimate to guess, even in the absence of all other evidence, that
whatever did not pass to Walter's descendants belonged to Derek, Walter
being merely in charge during the minority of his heir.
the resignation of William de Bacton in favour of his maternal uncle
Roger de Valoignes, the Bishop enfeoffed the latter to hold these fees
"as well as ever did Teodericus or his son Hugh." It is therefore quite
clear that Derek had been succeeded by his son Hugh; and since William
de Bacton had a brother Hugh de Bacton, a monk, it is possible that
William was also a son of Derek, having succeeded on his brother's
accepting the tonsure.
Keats-Rohan refers to William of Bacton as "William de Bachetun" (DD), and he was a grandson of "Petrus de Valonges" (DP), through his mother "Muriel de Valognes" (DD)
and her first husband, whose name is never mentioned in contemporary
documents. This first husband was therefore probably either
Theoderic himself, or a son. Apart from
Hugh son of Theodric, and William of Bacton, she also lists another
apparent descendant as "Willelm
filius Theoderici" (DD)
who witnessed the foundation charter of Binham. (Rosie Bevan suggests
to me that William de Bacton and William son of Theodoric are probably
the same person. See her Medieval Genealogy post from 2004.) These holdings of
Theoderic, eventually equating to 13 knights fees in Norfolk and
the Honour of Bacton.
The Domesday book records that some of
Walter's and Theodric's lands
had been held at the conquest in 1066 by
a man with the common Anglo-Saxon name of Leuuin (which is the normal
Norman representation of Anglo-Saxon Leofwin), who was
specifically described as a
King's thegn or freeman "of Bacton". Dodwell thinks all Walter's
holdings which came from Leuuin were Theoderic's, and although not all
are specifically named this way in Domesday, Clarence Smith thinks this
a reasonable supposition, partly with an eye upon the fact that they
also all descended together not to the Barony of Little Easton,
but into the Honour of Bacton, which as explained above became a
possession of the de Valognes. As shown above, this was held
by William de Bacton under the Bishop of Norwich, though at Domesday
they had been held direct from the King. (As Rosie Bevan points out to
me, William is known to have owed 80 marks to the Bishop which had 8
fees as pledge. The subsequent transfer to Roger de Valognes of 13 fees
would be because Roger paid the Bishop.) Despite the Domesday book
implying otherwise, the Bishop claimed to be overlord back to the time
of Theoderic and Hugh, so there is some
chance that William of Bacton had not inherited from Theoderic and
his son Hugh, but it seems very unlikely (Dodwell p.157, Clarence Smith
p.114). Clarence Smith
(p.114) even speculates it as a possibility that Leuuin was the father
of both Walter the deacon and Theoderic (Derek, Tedric) his brother. If
so then Theoderic received his father's lands, and they were more
valuable. Dodwell (p.147) lists what she considers the lands of Lewin,
which came to the honour, as
Bacton, Milden, Witnesham, and Brunton in Suffolk, and Purleigh, Colne
and probably Bowers Giffard in Essex.
apparently stayed in Walter's family, his own core lands as opposed to
Theodric's, were 7 manors equating to 10 knights fees, which is the
future barony of Little Easton (Clarence Smith p.119). The way the
manors were counted
were four in Essex (Little Easton, Wix, Little Bromley and Little
Chesterford), two in Suffolk (Bildeston and Swilland), and one in
Dorset (Godmanston). Sezincote in Gloucestershire was not separately
counted (Clarence Smith p.1), and there were probably other properties
which also did not count as manors. Five of these seven manors had been
held by the
Queen Edith, widow of King Edward the Confessor. She had been one
of the greatest landholders in England
but in Wix, in
it is specified that the old Queen
granted this to Walter after the conquest. Later charters of his
children mention that he possessed the house and gardens surrounding
the church at Wix. Based upon the use of the names Edith and Alexander
for children, still very unusual at the time, Clarence Smith wonders
(p.112) if Walter the deacon married an Anglo-Saxon lady, as the
name Alexander was then probably associated with St Margaret, queen of Scotland, as she also had children with these
names a little earlier, and her court was well connected to the old
defeated Anglo-Saxon nobility. According to Clarence Smith, St Margaret was a
source of inspiration for people looking for names for their children.
And because Walter's son Alexander, though not his eldest son,
inherited from his daughter Edith, as we will see below, Clarence Smith
suggests that these two and also their brother Walter Maskerel shared
this Scotland-watching mother, who must have been a second wife. Query.
The logic of Clarence Smith actually seems to imply that Walter
Maskerel, as the elder brother in this group, can not have had the same
mother, for he did have an heir as will be seen below.
from Godwin, Leuuin, Theodric, and Queen Edith, there was one more
known predecessor of Walter's Domesday holdings (at least just sticking
to the manors held in chief). Little Easton itself had been held by
someone named Dodinc, who Clarence Smith says appears nowhere else in
pedigree 1. A tentative pedigree for the 11th century generations
exists concerning the next generation after Walter, which possibly
attracts more attention today than it deserves. It arises because the
man known to be
holding this barony, Robert, is thought by some
to have sometimes been described in his own lifetime not with any
Hastings surname, like his descendants, but as Robert "of Windsor"
many spelling variants of the time such as de
Windelshore, or Windresore and so on). Keats-Rohan for example, in her
him in Domesday
Descendants, uses the name "Robert de Windresor",
although she mentions that in family charters relating to his
succession he is called Robert fitz Walter (Robert son of Walter). As
will be discussed further below, it seems reasonable to doubt that he
was ever called Robert of Windsor in
but in a much-cited
of 1128, which exists in two later transcribed forms, King Henry I
refers to him in Latin as "Robertus filius
Wyndesora" This could simply be read as a description "Robert son
Windsor", or "Robert, son of Walter of Windsor". In this period there
always have to be doubts that words like the "son of Walter" or the
"of Windsor" were being used as a heritable surname, or just
descriptions, but this is a
possibility. The charter said that he had
died and that William, son of this
Robert, had been rendered his father's lands by the king.
(When looking at collections of royal charters from this period and
region, such as that of Farrer's itinerary of Henry I, it seems likely
that such a specific name was needed because of possible confusion with
other men who might have been Robert, and whose father might have been
Walter. One such, though a bit too young to be confused with this one,
was for example the founder of a famous de Chesney family, "Willelm filius Robert de Caisneto" (DD).)
This charter is found copied in the Calendar of Charter Rolls,
The date of the inspeximus was 2 March 1270, Westminster, and two
versions are given, one by Henry I shows Maurice de Windesore as a
witness. Landon (p.175, n.3) informs that the original date was 1128
based upon William Farrer's Itinerary
of Henry I, p.124,
wherein charter 579 is an English translation of this announcement. The
second old charter in the inspeximus is according to Clarence Smith
(p.106) by Henry II.
Farrer also informs that there was another inspeximus of this record 10
April 1336, as shown p.249
of the Calendar of
for Edward III, Vol.3. Clarence Smith (p.107) explains that the
original charter also survives, Harleian manuscript 43, c.22, published
in facsimile in Warner and Ellis (1903) as plate 39; Bishop No. 376).
A widespread confusion arises because a Walter "of Windsor" did
exist (although he was probably never named this way). John Horace
Round, especially in
part of his 1902 article
on the "Origin of the Fitzgeralds," insisted that Robert must be a son
of this Walter fitz Other ("Walter filius Other" DP),
who held the castle of
the Norman king, and whose sons and descendents were often
understandably referred to as being "of
Windsor". (But Clarence Smith, p.107, points out that "even Round does
not claim that Walter fitz Other ever called himself de Windsor".) But
this raises a question of why Walter the Deacon would
make the son of another man his heir when he had, as we shall see, sons
own. Indeed, Walter fitz Other himself had another heir, "William filius Walteri filii
Otheri" (DD). (See for example the first
of Round's Fitzgerald article. The barony of this family
is referred to as the barony of Eton, in Sanders (pp.116-7) for
example.) The only way to explain it according to Clarence Smith
(p.105) would be forfeiture whereby, as a "gesture of reconciliation",
the king effectively demoted Walter and his male line, putting in a new
man above him, who as an "act of reconcilation" married a daughter of
Walter. (In this case Clarence Smith finds it difficult to accept that
this Robert de Windsor, not known from other records, would be so
highly favoured with his marriage. For example a highly favoured man,
Maurice de Windsor, married a younger sister.)
Round's thinking on this matter was apparently strongly connected to a
which he published that same year, on "Castle Guard".
the barony of Little Easton owed castle guard to Windsor. So
although the Little Easton Hastings family held directly of the king,
in another way they were answerable to
Windsor castellan family, giving the barony of Little Easton an association with that
castle. The Red
Book of the
II pp.716-7, is
one of the only clear records remaining of the make-up of a castle
barony from this period. It shows that Matthew de Louvain, the heir to
barons of Little Easton in the 13th century, was one of the major
castle ward tenants of
Windsor, holding 10 knights fees. 10 knights fees is the same as the
barony reported in the Cartae
in the mid 12th century for his Hastings forbears. If I
understand correctly, in the time of Robert castle
duty would still have involved real duties and a physical presence at
the castle in the early
period. That would
seem to give a possible explanation for the use of this second name in
this specific Essex barony (Clarence Smith p.107), because the men of
the Little Easton family had to work and fight for the men of the
Windsor family. But designations
such "de Windresore" can not be assumed to be inheritable family names
in the early 12th
century, and certainly not in the family we are discussing.
Nevertheless, Round was scathing and dismissive of the 1869 attempt of
G. T. C. Clark
(as had Eyton before him) that Robert was the son of the Deacon, and
authors in following
generations such as Landon, Moriarty, Sanders, and Dodwell seem very
disagree with the great Round, even though especially Landon and
to doubts about the arguments presented by Round.
In the 21st century one of our most well-known contemporary authorities
these generations, Katherine
Keats-Rohan, has taken a strong position in favour of the Deacon as
father of Robert, in disagreement with Round. Unfortunately, for a
large part of the genealogically-inclined public, the reasons for
accepting such a position seem not to be well understood. In fact,
the most complete statement for
this position, which took into account all the previous authors, had
been published by Clarence Smith, but this is not available on the
internet, and apparently not widely known. Some of the details of
Keats-Rohan's position can be gleaned by comparing entries in her Domesday Descendants,
especially for the second names "de
and "de Hastings",
but she also gave some specific (but short) explanations in both the forward of Domesday Descendants
includes a Hastings pedigree), and a Prosopon
about early baronies where she disagrees with the standard work of
Sanders. It behooves us nevertheless to
explain how strong the
case is that Round is wrong and Keats-Rohan is right, because:
- The well-known printed reference
Keats-Rohan are in a specific format, containing short statements about individuals who can be
identified from a certain set of documents in a certain period.
- The two books
also do not present exhaustive
sourcing or arguments, which are however somewhat more traceable in the COEL
- Keats-Rohan's own printed statements on this issue have for better or worse tended to focus
particular aspect of evidence which is open to debate. The
following quotation is presented as the core argument:
The relationship is
established by the fact that Henry II’s charter
giving the stewardship of Bury to William his dispencer is very
specific in its description of the relationships between William and
his predecessors in the office. William’s immediate predecessor was his
paternal uncle (patruus) Ralph I of Hastings, a son of Robert fitz
Walter; Ralph of Hastings had inherited the office from his maternal
uncle (avunculus) Maurice of Windsor (his mother’s brother who had
probably derived his right through his wife Edith).
The charter being referred to is for example reproduced as Bury charter 89 (Douglas ed.).
rex Anglorum et dux Normannorum et Aquietanorum et comes Andegauorum
archiepiscopis. episcopis. comitibus. baronibus. iustic'.
uicecomitibus. et ministris et omnibus hominibus suis francis et anglis
salutem. Sciatis me concessisse et carta mea confirmasse Willelmo de Hastyngs dispensatori
dapiferatum sancti Edmundi. Quare uolo quod idem Willelmus et heredes
eius habeant et teneant dapiferatum illum bene et integre et in pace
cum omnibus pertinenciis eius in liberacionibus et feodis et
innominatim cum Legata et Bluneham et aliis locis et rebus eidem
dapiferatui pertinentibus sicut Radulfus
eum melius habuit et tenuit uel Mauricius
auunculus suus eiusdem Radulfi.
Testibus. Willelmo Malet dapifero. lose [sic] de Baillol. Alano de
Nouilla. Willelmo de Lanuolei. Hugone de Loncamp'. Hugone de
Gondeuilla. Hugone de Piris. Waltero de Donstanuilla. Roberto filio
Bernardi. Per manum Stephani capellani et cantoris mei. Apud Porcestram.
It seems that letting the published explanations rely on
this later royal charter has left doubts amongst well-informed
concerning the link between Walter the Deacon and Robert. Is this
evidence strong enough to disagree with someone as famous as Round? The
seem easy to explain:
1. This is a philological explanation which relies on the use in this charter of two distinct
uncle, one paternal and one maternal. However, the word avunculus
was not always used to strictly refer to maternal uncles, but could
"uncle" more generally, like the modern English word. A very relevant
example is that Robert's own son William
referred to Walter Mascerel and Alexander of Wix as avunculi
(Landon p. 175, citing charter A.5275;
also Clark p.124). Whereas
Round would say they were maternal uncles, in this case Keats-Rohan
would say that they were actually paternal uncles. Undoubtedly
we must consider that in the document Keats-Rohan relies
two words, patruus
are together in one document made for Henry II. So the words
appear to be used in a precise and considered way. A
weak counter argument still exists however, because it
possible that the word choices of this charter might have partly been
decided by looking at older charters about the descent of this
We can compare charter 87
in Douglas' edition of Bury charters, granting to Ralph of
Hastings that which had been held by "Mauricii de Windelsore auunculi
sui". The later royal charter, focussed upon by Keats-Rohan (charter
could be read as repeating the old one when it says that Maurice had
to Ralph de
Hastings. In any case, can we be sure that the composer of this wording felt certain
they were using exact terminology, as opposed to simply an old
it seems reasonable to be believe the word selection in this charter
was intended to mean something, at least
concerning the relationships between the people mentioned in it. And
relevance of this charter's two types of uncles was apparently
by Eyton, and in this he was followed by Clark and Moriarty, and this
basis of pedigree 6 below. But is it relevant to the question of Robert
and Walter? And is it strong enough to be certain that Round was wrong?
2. The second and more important problem with this way
of presenting the argument for Robert fitz Walter being the son of the
deacon is that this charter only gives indirect evidence on that point.
The charters about the
dapifership of Bury do not mention
Robert, or his father Walter, or anything directly related to the
Barony of Little Easton, and so everything seems to hang upon the
assertion of Keats-Rohan that the
person she calls "Ralph
II of Hastings"
who we shall discuss below, was a son of Robert fitz Walter (DD "Robert de
In short, in
to use this charter to define the relationship between Robert and
Walter, we need to know how these dapifers of
Bury themselves related to Robert and Walter, but there is
at least some room for doubt concerning the relationship between the
Hastings families of the lords of Little Easton (pedigrees 2-5 below),
and the stewards of Bury (see pedigrees 6-8 below). Indeed, as I will
explain, Keats-Rohan's understanding of this relationship is unique,
and hard to justify.
Other evidence is however available, which can allow us to first
try to establish the descent of the Barony of Little Easton, before
returning to the subject of the above-mentioned dapifers, William, Ralf
and Maurice. The evidence was presented in
the 19th century Hastings articles of Clark, which were so
vigorously (but not rigorously)
by Round. Pedigrees 2 and 3, define what is relatively uncontroversial
the relations of Walter and Robert respectively, using charter evidence
which Clark started to gather in the 19th century, but which (less
well-known amongst genealogists) has been substantially improved upon
in the late 20th century by Landon, Dodwell and Clarence Smith. After
defining these as starting points, we can try to close the case
concerning the father of Robert fitz Walter, by adding pedigree
4 which allows to link the first two, giving us pedigree 5. The
evidence from legal records presented in pedigree 4 was already given
by Clark. Remaining
doubts, including those explained by Barbara Dodwell in 1960 (see
Bibliography), will be noted where relevant. However, Clarence Smith's
more recent articles (1966 and 1967) contained replies to those
concerns which supports the following summary.
cites Dodwell, who she apparently disagrees with on this point, but
possibly she was not be aware of Clark's and especially Clarence
Smith's articles, which do agree with her.
The lords of the barony in each generation will be distinguished by being
in shaded boxes.
pedigree 2. Walter the Deacon and the children named
as such in charters (none of whom took over his lordship)
Notes for this pedigree.
1. The fact that Walter the Deacon had three known children has
been treated as certain by authors since the time of Philip Morant, but
in the 20th century, Dodwell found reason to doubt he was their father.
summarised by Clark, Landon, Dodwell, Clarence Smith and others
uncontroversially confirm that Walter Maskerel,
Alexander de Waham (or "Valham", or of Wix) and a sister named Edith
were siblings and benefactors to the nuns at Wix. Especially useful are
a series of them concerning a house and lands surrounding the church at
Wix, which had belonged to their father, but the oldest of these
documents do not name the father. Discussion is required to consider
the evidence for the father's name:
In general, both Brooks and Dodwell acceept
that the "forgeries" were probably simply copies commissioned by the
nuns because of extensive damage to their important deeds. What was
forged were the seals and other evidence of the documents being
original. But specifically in the case of Walter the deacon they
propose that something might have been added, and in particular one of
those things is the name of Walter the deacon, who is, they note, actually referred to here as Walter the dean (decanus), not the deacon (diaconus)
as in the Domesday book. Brooks (p.53) even argues that the name
might simply "have been invented in the 1190s" and the basis of this
position is that it "gives a very inflated list of privileges and
exemptions". In other words, in this one case he thinks the nuns really
inserted new information fraudulently, and Dodwell (p.150) apparently
accepted this. Clarence Smith finds this logic defective, saying
that such an insertion could have served no purpose in the 1190s, and
that "it is surely an exagerration to say that 'it gives a very
inflated list of privileges and exemptions' " (p.104). Concerning the
insertion of Walter's name, he proposes that an example of a simple
explanation would be that Alexander, "alive in 1157 but an old
man", took advantage of the fact that Henry II was writing a new
confirmation, of which the original is now lost (and which "does not
purport to follow the exact words of its predecessors"), in order to
"rescue his father from the oblivion of anonymity".
- From the time of Henry I, when Walter Maskerel was still alive,
there is AS.316 (E42/316). This was selected for National Manuscripts in Facsimile I, No.5, Bishop No.493, and is discussed by Clark (p.125 though he had no standard reference number for it), and Clarence Smith (p.11). It is also Charter 1739, p.258, in Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum
Vol. II. The
charter also grants two carucates and seven villeins at Wix, and 10
shillings worth of land at Fratinges. It lastly mentions the isle of
Sirichesie and the tithes of Purleigh, but Clarence Smith (p.11) points
out that this does not appear in later confirmations, and while these
were certainly granted (as shall be explained) they were not held under
the same tenant in chief and their grant had a different history.
Therefore he considers the inclusion on the end of this grant
"suspicious". Brook (p.46) lists it as document i, in his extensive
list I, of probable forgeries among Wix charters (copies made later
than they purport to have been made). Brook also mentions that the
charter was reproduced because of a later inspeximus in the Patent Rolls of Henry VI, p.262, p.263.
Stephen's confirmation "again uses almost identical language" except
without mention of Sirichesie and Purleigh (Clarence Smith p.11) and so
once again does not mention the father's name. It is E40/5276,
also known as A.5276, in the "A series" of "Ancient Deeds" at the National Archives in Kew. In older Cartae Antiquae terms this is L.2.31.4, and according to Clarence Smith was cited by Clark p.123 wrongly as L.2.31.14. Clarence Smith also refers to it as Bishop No 449. It is also found in Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum
Vol. III, charter
p.355, and Keats-Rohan
cites this one. Brooke (p.45) felt it probably a genuine original
(p.46, n.2): "If it is a late twelfth-century forgery, it is
a very clever imitation of the real thing, and it shows no
resemblance to the hand of either known forger".
made a charter after the death of Walter his elder brother, and
addressed his confirmation of this grant to Bishop Richard of London.
This is Bacton Charter number 10 in Dodwell's article, dated by
Dodwell 1157-1162. This is also E40/5273, formerly Cart. Ant.
L.2.31.14, and also noted by Landon p.174. Brook (p.47) includes it as
charter viii in his list I of probable Wix forgeries. (Brook associates
it with charter E42/301, which is one of the grants concerning another part of Wix manor.) NOTE: This particular charter after the death of Walter is also made at the plea of his sister Edith.
fitz Robert, the lord of the barony of Little Easton at that time, also
apparently confirmed the above grant of Alexander, or at least "all
that donation which my avunculi Walter Mascherel and Alexander his brother gave". This is E40/5275, formerly Cart. Ant. L.2.31.10, cited as such by Clark p.124.
(Clarence Smith is wrong to suggest Clark cited it also on p.121.)
Brook (p.47) lists this charter as number x in his list I of probable
- Henry II's confirmations do name the father. There are two versions. E40/13947 was copied very early into the Cartae Antiquae Rolls. Brooks (p.53) suggests this was done by 1198, not long after he thinks it was itself made. Landon describes it as Carte Antique No. 3; Clark p.123, p.125 as Cart.
c.m.20 dorso; In Dugdale's Monasticon
IV p.513 it is reproduced and referred to as Cart. Antiq.
c.n.20 (which Clarence Smith refers to as a "very faulty" transcript).
Brooke lists it (p.46) as charter iii in his list I of probable
later copies from Wix, and done in forgery "hand I". A plate of it
was reproduced, and discussed p.16, in Jenkinson's book on Paleography.
- The second Henry II charter is E40/14901, also reproduced in Jenkinson, and has other references National Manuscripts in Fascimile I, No.11, Bishop No.481.
Brooke lists it as charter xxiii in his list II of probable forged
copies, and it was done in "hand II". He suggests (p.46, n.1) that
E40/14901 was possibly copied from E40/13947, "but they may well be
approximately contemporary". Brooke indeed mentions (p.54) these two
documents as evidence that the two professional forgers must have been
working for Wix at a similar time in the 1190s. (It must have been a
husbands of Edith are important to the overall story, and also require
detailed explanation. Two proposals made in the 20th century have now
received apparent acceptance, but the evidence is not apparently
well-known. The apparent identity of "Edith soror Alexandri de Wikes"
(DD) (the one who plead to Alexander that he mentions in Bacton Charter 10) and the Edith (or Egidia) who married "Maurice de Windresor"
(DD) seems to have been first noted by
Landon, and for example G. A. Moriarty adapted his conclusions after
reading Landon, publishing a second Hastings article in the New England
Historical Genealogical Register. Dodwell, Clarence Smith and Keats-Rohan also accept
this suggestion. Apart from the
coincidence of name (which apparently appears in very varied forms in
the original documents), the coincidence of an interest in Wix is not
conclusive because other people "of Windsor" were also benefactors in
the 12th century (see Clark, and also Dugdale's Monasticon
and also being called "of Windsor" was not necessarily a family name.
The evidence really has to be sought in charters again. That Edith had
first married Maurice's predecessor as dapifer of Bury, known simply as
was apparently first proposed by Dodwell, and is accepted by Clarence
Smith and Keats-Rohan. That one of them was probably related to Ralph
had been noted at least since Eyton.
So it seems Edith did not have Purleigh because it belonged
the deacon (as part of his brother Theodric's lands), but rather
because it was granted to her and her first husband. To show that
Alexander of Waham was also the brother of this Edith we need to look
at charters about these lands after Maurice and Edith's time.
- A charter E40/8923 by Maurice and Edith together to
the nuns, grants the
isle of "Sirichesie" and
the tithes of "our demesne" Purleigh. Clarence Smith discussed this
charter p.109, and it is reproduced as Dodwell's Bacton charter 7
(p.162), dated 1154 or 1155. Importantly, this charter made it
was from Edith's inheritance. (Sirichesie is possibly
Northey. This was proposed in a short note by
R.C. Fowler based on Landon's paper, and published in the same
journal. Brooke, Dodwell, and Clarence Smith apparently accepted
this identification, all citing Reaney's Place Names of Essex p.218 as an authority.)
mentions (p.154) that E40/14542 is a papal confirmation of this
grant, which specifies that Maurice and Edith did not hold "Sirrshseie"
and "Purlai" of Little Easton, but of Holy Trinity in Norwich. Dodwell
concludes that these holdings were not part of Walter the deacon's own
core possessions, but actually part of Theodric's original holdings
which somehow came into the hands of the sea of Norwich. But as
discussed above, most of these continued to be held under Norwich in
the Honour of Bacton.
Bacton charter 2 (p.158) is a
charter of William of Bacton, dated 1121-1135 concerning all his lands
he held under Bishop Ebrard, worth 13 knight's fees, to be granted to
his maternal uncle Roger de Valognes. But for some reason it was
necessary to mention that the grant specifically excluded lands held
directly under the bishop by "Maurice" which Dodwell (p.154) and
Clarence Smith (p.114) believed to be Maurice de Windsor.
The implication, also suggested by the odd number of 13 knight's fees
in this period when most were multiples of 5 still, is that the lands
of Maurice had once been held together with the rest of these lands,
presumably by Theoderic. The suggestion is that these were two manors
at Purleigh, the same as Maurice would grant with his wife.
- In an 1130 charter,
Dodwell's Bacton charter 6, Maurice and Edith grant the church of Hoxne
to the Bishop. They wanted a convent of monks to be placed in a
chapel in Hoxne so they might pray for
Ralph the dapifer's soul. They said that Ralph had rebuilt Hoxne St Edmund. This is a
typical thing which would be done for a close relative. Eyton and Clark
in the 19th century
therefore claimed that Maurice must have been related to Ralph.
Dodwell and Clarence Smith say that Maurice and Edith nevertheless were holding on to
possession of lands they held under the bishop in Purleigh, because
Bishop Herbert's confirmation (reproduced within charter 6) mentions
that he and his successors would, if they had occasion to summon
Maurice or his successors, do it at "Purlai" not Hoxne.
- Dodwell's Bacton charter 5, dated by her to between 1110 and 1119, is
clearly the predecessor of the later dedication in charter 6 to Maurice and Edith in
Hoxne, and shows that the lands were originally granted to Ralph the dapifer
and his wife
Edith by Archbishop Herbert de Losinga of
Norwich (d. 1119). The
bishop granted them the church of Hoxne, together with another un-named
fief, until both of them were dead. Dodwell and Clarence Smith concur
that this un-named fief must therefore be Purleigh. An article on Hoxne chapel which is helpful for the subject here is this one.
it seems Edith and Maurice had no children themselves, and as it also
seems that Alexander de Waham had a sister Edith, the solution proposed
by Landon, and accepted since then, is that Alexander is the brother
and heir of Edith the wife of Maurice. As Clarence Smith remarks, this
implies that Alexander and Edith, who had at least one older brother,
must have shared a different mother.
- E40/5270 is Cart. Ant. L.2,31
19, and referred to by Clark p.123 and
Clarence Smith describes it (p.108) as being made by the Bishop of
London between 1154 and 1160, but reciting that the late King Henry I
had taken the nuns under his protection, including their lands, under
which Siricheseie is mentioned. It is also mentioned that Archbishop
Theobald had confirmed this too. The grantor of the lands is not
mentioned, but it is mentioned that the tithes of Purleigh were by then
in the demesne of Alexander de Walham. Apparently E40/5271 and E40/14542 are similar (Clarence Smith p.108, n.169).
above-mentioned confirmation of Archbishop Theobald also exists, as
AS.356(i) (presumably somewhere in E42 today) and this document says
that the grant was by Maurice de Windsor and
Alexander de Waham. This links Alexander to Maurice and Edith, Edith
apparently having died first, and makes it clear that his
reconfirmations were of the same lands they granted. Alexander seems to
act like an heir to Edith. Similar documents apparently include
E40/14550, E40/14042, E40/5269, and E40/14542 (Clarence Smith p.109,
is what Clarence Smith calls Alexander's
"consolidating charter" (p.12, p.109). It confirmed many old grants,
including the ones about the gardens and house at the church of Wix
discussed above. Clarence Smith thinks it was made in anticipation of
death, including an "unprecedented" number of witnesses, and
arrangements for his wife after his death. Concerning the tithe of
Purleigh, and the isle of Sciricheseia it does not mention any
predecessors, but it does say that it belongs to him by inheritance.
This means he must been an heir of Edith the wife of Maurice.
Apparently the consolidating charter did not explain completely
who would be Alexander's heir in each place, and Clarence Smith suggests that
the one or more of the charters by landlords has not survived which
might have explained this.
- E40/5268 is Cart. Ant. L.2,31 16 and referred to by Clark p.123 and p.126.
It is also Bishop No.448. It is a confirmation by Henry II of
Alexander's grant, along with some other grants by other people. It
does not refer to Maurice or Purleigh. Clarence Smith remarks (p.111)
that this royal confirmation shows that Alexander's claim to hold this
of his own inheritance was taken seriously.
must also consider the confusing fact that while it seems Edith had
Alexander as an apparent heir, Maurice seems to have also had a man named Ralph de
Hastings as an heir, or at least as someone who was a successor
assigned to some lands he once held. This was long known for the
Dodwell showed that there is also a charter, her Bacton charter 8
(which is reconstructed from the damaged original E40/6227, plus a
later inspeximus copy annexed to E40/751,
also damaged) concerning Sydritheseye and Purleie and its tithes, held
of the Holy Trinity in Norwich. That this inspeximus was requested by
Henry son of Henry de Hastings shows that this was remembered by the
Hastings family which would become the Earls of Pembroke. Dodwell
remarks (p.155) that it is confusing that Alexander and Maurice,
Alexander on his own, and finally Maurice's own heir as dapifer Ralph
de Hastings, seem to all have acted as heirs at different points. She
thinks Ralph was last in this sequence.
- That Northey and Purleigh came to the
family of the dapifers of Bury is confirmed for example by Dodwell (p.156), who
says that a knight's fee at Purleigh was one of the fees belonging to
Lidgate in the Inquisition Post Mortem of hereditary steward Henry son
of Henry de Hastings (who was probably the same one who confirmed the charter of Ralph, E40/751).
So far I have summarised the descent of two sets of property, (1) being
the gardens and house around the church in Wix, and (2) being related
to Purleigh, specifically concerning its tithes and the Isle
(apparently) of Northey, which apparently ended up in the hands of
another Hastings family. The family charters and their various
confirmations also mention (3) 20 acres in Wix which had once been held
by a priest named Algar (A.5273, A.13897). This was apparently first a
grant of Alexander de Wikes, which later passed to Ralph de Hastings of
Wix (who is not the same Ralph as the older man who was heir to
Maurice as dapifer, as shall be shown). Another donation (4), which we
can track is 10 shillings worth of land in
Fratinges (AS.316, A.13897). These were originally possibly granted by
Walter, Alexander and Edith together, but later they also came to Ralph
de Hastings of Wix, who called his predecessor Alexander de Wicha
(Clarence Smith pages 10-11). (5) Is a third of the manor of Wix,
which Clarence Smith interprets as a third of a half fee, or a 6th of a
knight's fee. Clarence Smith (p.10, p.101) understands the manor as a
whole to have been held in two moieties by Walter de Maskerel and
Alexander de Waham, but that after the death of the second Walter, Wix
became a manor of half a fee. Alexander granted a third of his part to
his wife as her dowry. Later it seems the two parts, now valued at half
a fee, descended to Ralf de Hastings of Wix, and from him to his heirs.
(6) Are the lands Alexander acquired himself, outside the barony
(Clarence Smith pages 12-13). These also passed to Ralph, and can be
traced to his heirs.
3. Further notes for the above pedigree.
Many charters remark that Walter and Alexander were uncles (avunculi)
to William fitz Robert, lord of Little Easton in the mid 12th century.
But we delay discussion of that link until we can give evidence
about whether they were paternal or maternal uncles.
Maskerel son of Walter Maskerel is mentioned in the
"ancient deed" A.13881 (E40/13881), in
which his uncle Alexander is a supporter when cousins granted him land in Wix which his
father of the same
had possessed. (This shows that Walter, presumably older because always
listed first, died before his brother Alexander.) The possible
continuation of the line of Walter Maskerel shall be discussed below.
- "Alexander de
is refered to as being of Wikes, or Wix, in E40/5273,
but actually seems to be more commonly referred to as Alexander de
Waham, or simply Alexander. Morant,
apparently thought that Waham referred to Witham. Dodwell (p.151)
suggests it could be Waltham or more likely Wallam, in Bradwell on Sea.
She thought that Bradwell on Sea might also be related to "Excestre" (a
surname also associated with this family, see pedigree 3). His seal, mentioned by Dodwell and Clarence Smith, said "Valham".
- Although I find no discussion of the implications,
Keats-Rohan has an entry for "Willelm
filius Walteri Decani" (DD). (Note: not "diaconi".) He was a tenant of "Roger de Montcanisy" (DD) at Ashfield, Suffolk, and his
land was given with consent of his wife Godiva, to Colne priory. Keats-Rohan cites Fisher's Cartularium
Prioratus de Colne,
charters 67, 68 and 70, which are all dated 1155. Ashfield had not been part of the
Domesday holdings, but being in Suffolk, it is not far. On the other
hand the norman de Montcanisy family were related by
the family of the deacon, according to Keats-Rohan: "Hubert de Montecanisio" (DP)
married as his second wife, "Muriel
de Valognes" (DD),
whose first husband was probably either Theoderic the brother of
Walter, or else a son. The nature of the grants presumably implies William had no heir.
pedigree 3. The lords of the
Barony of Little Easton, after Walter the Deacon
No charter evidence says which Walter was the father of Robert fitz
Walter, and so to begin with we examine the charter evidence for his
family in isolation.
Notes for this pedigree.
1. Robert in the first generation.
are very few near-contemporary documents mentioning Robert directly. I
have mentioned above that I have doubts that he was ever referred to by
the name Keats-Rohan uses in her
him in Domesday
, "Robert de Windresor"
. But (as already discussed) in a much-cited
of 1128, which exists in two later transcribed forms, King Henry I refers to him in Latin as "Robertus filius
Wyndesora". Clarence Smith (p.107) says that the only other clear mention of him is in the Curia Regis
rolls, some generations later, wherein he is once called "de Estanes"
and once "de Hastings". There are several cases of Robert de Windsors
as witnesses in charters
in the 12th century for this family, but most of them are too late for
this Robert, and clearly represent a younger man of that name. See for example Bury charter 138
(estimated 1148-1156). While Keats-Rohan speculates that this
who she calls "Robert de
might represent a branch of the deacon's family who kept using the name Windsor,
he is in any case likely to be another kinsman to Maurice, and/or probably
also related to the Windsor family who were tenants under the barony of
Easton in Swilland, as shown in the Red Book of the Exchequer
for 1166 (p.358). (Clarence Smith believed the Swilland de Windsors to
have a confirmable connection to the family of the castellans.)
Keats-Rohan only cites two Bury charters 108
(both estimated 1114-1119), as documents where a Robert de Windsor is a
witness who she thinks might be this one. They are versions of the
Windsor of the Bury dapifership. They also have a Reinald de Windsor as
witness. Another from a similar time we can add is A.8923, which was
the grant of
this same Maurice and his wife Edith to Wix of lands and tithes from
her inheritance (discussed above). But because all
these grants involved Maurice de Windsor it is hard to feel
confident that this is not
simply a member of Maurice's family, about which we know more-or-less
nothing. Clarence Smith (p.111) says
that concerning the first and apparently the earliest of
"natural assumption would be that Reinald and Robert were brothers of
Maurice". (However if they were brothers, then the descent of the
dapifership to a sister's son was not by inheritance, but rather by
fresh grant, decided by the see of Norfolk. This is possible. And
indeed Edith seems to have had some special status in this inheritance
as she is consistently mentioned in grants by both her husbands.) As to
whether this Reinald
is a member of the castellan's
family, as suggested by Round and accepted by Keats-Rohan, Clarence
Smith seems correct to say that there is "no evidence whatever" for
this "except Round's Harleian Roll" (made in 1582, see Clarence Smith
p.3), and "Round, who so castigated the unfortunate Clark for uniting
all the Hastings families into one, has committed the same sin with his
Windsors". It is a seperate matter that Round and Keats-Rohan also
believe that this Reinald may have been a steward of Queen Adeliza (Round
, Keats-Rohan DD "Rainald de Windresor"
Clarence Smith p.111, n. 192), because this in itself would not make
Rainald a member of the castellan's family. Maurice himself clearly was
in favour at court (Clarence Smith p.105), whoever he was.
2. William fitz Robert in the second generation.
(p.176) notes one charter (A.13893) where William the son of Robert, as he was apparently usually
called, was more specifically named as "William fitz Robert de Hastings
As Clarence-Smith points out, this charter is a copy of A.13883 with
differences. His children used the Hastings name more consistently, but
always, with Robert his son often being referred to as Robert de Aistan
Aiston (Landon p.177). Keats-Rohan's selection of the name "Willelm de Hastings"
to refer to William the son of Robert, is therefore once again a choice
of name which does not seem to represent contemporary records
well. Keats-Rohan (COEL)
cites examples of this name but all could be her "Willelm
de Hastings Dispensator"
the eventual heir to the dapifership once held by Maurice de Windsor. That William
had inherited the dapifership by 1162 (Clarence Smith p.110 n.186), but
he was already of age and serving the king before then. Keats-Rohan
admits (in the
latter entry) difficulty in defining distinct
records that must be
William fitz Robert referred to as "de Hastings". If we follow Clarence
Smith and Landon's interpretation that is because there are very few if
any. Here are the sightings mentioned by Keats-Rohan, where this William may have used the name "de Hastings":
- Cronne/David RRAN III, No. 823.
This is an 1153 charter made at Bridgnorth by Henry Duke of Normandy,
the future King Henry II, with witnesses including William de Hastings and his two brothers
Phillipus and Radulphus. I do not perceive any reason to connect this
to east Anglia, so it could concern men from Sussex (where Hastings is)
or some other part of the country. I also note that Keats-Rohan
apparently is inconsistent because she names "Philip de Hastings" and "Radulph de Hastings" (DD) as William's sons, citing this charter where they are named as brothers
to a William. (Furthermore, as Rosie Bevan has pointed out to me, the
charter is a questionable one. It might for example combine people from
Bacton Charter No. 9, which is the same as E40/13984. But Clarence Smith
(p.10) remarks concerning this charter that it is a "striking"
example of the Hastings name being used for William's son Robert, but
- Charter 47 from Douglas Social Structure of Medieval East Anglia
(1927). This is an approximate 1150 Norfolk charter whereby Abbot Hugh
of Saint Benedict Holm was granting land in North Walsham and
"Antigham" to Robert Ludham, brother of Thubert. "William de
Hastingges" is the first witness.
But William the King's dispensator must have had a presence in Norfolk,
where even before inheriting his dapifership, he must have held
Ashhill, as this was connected to the office of dispensator.
- Pipe Rolls, 1161 one entry in Norfolk/Suffolk (p.66) and two entries in London (p.67, p.73).
But this is approximately the period when William fitz Robert died. For
this same year, Keats-Rohan allocates entries in
Warwickshire/Leicestershire, and Northampton as being a different
William de Hastings, who she calls "Willelm filius Hugonis de Hastings" (DD). We will discuss how this William may have had a presence in East Anglia and London, and indeed how he is the same as "Willelm
de Hastings Dispensator".
, originally Cartae Antiquae
L.2.31.6 (wrongly cited by Clark p.124
as L.2.31.7 according to Clarence Smith), is a doubtful case where a
William de Hastinkes appears as a witness, but apparently after William
fitz Robert died. If it is not the dispensator of the King, I wonder
if it could be Alexander's son William, who evidently died young, but
whose story seems unclear. According to Clarence Smith this can not be the son of
Alexander, because as a living heir these grants to Ralph should not have been
possible. We can add that there is no evidence his father or anyone in
his ancestry used the surname Hastings. So perhaps more likely it is the dapifer of
Bury and dispensator to the king,
who was heir to the heir of Maurice de Windsor, husband of Edith,
Alexander's sister. As discussed above, his family had an interest in other
inheritances that Alexander held, but which did not go to Ralph de
Hastings of Wix. And he was apparently consistently referred
to as William de Hastings. Clarence Smith (p.13) thinks it could be the
lord William fitz Robert,
despite the document being made "after the death of the Lord William".
He speculates that the Lord William might be the King Henry I's son and
heir, who died 1156 aged 4. (Less likely possibilities include "Willelm filius Walteri Decani"
mentioned under pedigree 2, but as he probably died without heir. And Jocelin of Brokeland, in his Chronicle
, also mentioned
a "Willelmus de Hastinga" who was one of the brothers in Bury at the
time of the election of Abbot Samson, in 1182.)
3. Helewise de Guerres.
name of the wife of William fitz Robert, Helewise de Guerres, seems to
have been first proposed by Landon, and this was accepted by Clarence Smith and Keats-Rohan.
Her first name is recorded in several charters from Williams own
lifetime (AS.301 = Bacton Charter 9, A.13984, A.13883, A.13893). But for her
surname it was necessary to look at several documents after the
death of William and her re-marriages.
4. Maud de Flamville.
- A.14008 is a charter with her second husband Gilbert de
mentioning Helewise's son and heir Robert. The three of them were
granting part of their tithes in Bildeston (one of the manors of Little Easton) to the nuns in
Wix, as had
been done by in the past by William fitz Robert. Ralf de Guerres was a
witness. Clarence Smith (p.5) reports that Gilbert appeared in the Pipe Rolls from 1163 until 1177. Keats-Rohan mentions that "Gibert
during the period of his marriage with
Helewise was "joint surveyor of repair work on Windsor castle".
own family's home was apparently in Weedon in Northamptonshire, so it
seems there is a connection between his relationship to Windsor castle,
his second marriage. Like Little Easton, his barony was subject to
castle guard at Windsor.
- The Pipe Roll
of 1181, under Yorkshire, mentioned Helewise the mother of
Robert de Hastings, being
married, confusingly, to a second William fitz Robert (see Vol.30, p.45).
This was apparently first understood by Landon. Clarence Smith later wrote (p.4) that "his
connection with our Robert de Hastings is put beyond any doubt by
litigation ten years later, when the prioress of Wix sued William fitz
Robert and Helewisa his wife in respect of the advowson of the church
of Bildeston". This action was settled by William fitz Robert and
Helewisia his wife "in the dower of which said church is founded", and
this was done together with
Ralph de Cornhill and Alice his wife, as patrons of the church of
Bildeston, and also as the people nominated to hold the advowson and
presentation after William and Helewisia. Clarence Smith (p.4)
refers for this to a Final Concord of 15 May 1191, published in Pipe
Roll Society 17, No.8. That Robert de Hastings'
mother was dowered in Bildeston and with its advowson, shows according to Clarence Smith that this
Robert de Hastings had inherited the barony, not from her,
but from his father.
- Landon transcribes a record from the Books of Fees
of 1219, p.282, showing that "Helewisa de Gwerres" was by then clearly
described as a widow who had been married to Gilbert de Pynkiny and
fitz Robert. She was then living in Bildeston and Godfrey de
Louvain was lord of the barony (1199-1226) through his wife. Together
with her in Bildeston was
her daughter-in-law and fellow widow, lady Matilda de Flamville. Landon
says Helewise's first husband would not
be mentioned because the document was concerned with widows under the
King's wardship as theoretically marriageable (despite their great
age). As Landon points out, it appears that Bildeston was used by the
family as a "dower manor" for its widows. (Because of this, Landon
proposes that the widow of Robert fitz Walter de Windsor must have
re-married Hugh de Waterville, who occurs in the Pipe Roll of 1130
under Suffolk, paying for the dower of his wife in Bildeston. Clarence
Smith does not seem attracted to this idea. Instead he suggests that
Helewisa herself had family connections in Bildeston. The two ideas are
not mutally exclusive.)
Concerning Maud de Flamville being wife to Robert de
Hastings, Landon (p.177,
n.6) cites Monasticon
and Rotulus de Oblatis
aware of one of these records (p.244
but wrongly believed, based on comments of the early Essex historian
Philip Morant, that Robert in the pedigree above was married to a
Windsor heiress (p.131
It is already mentioned above that in 1219 she was along with her
mother-in-law holding Bildeston under Godefrey de Louvain, but in Early Yorkshire Families
we also find that "in 1233-40, in her widowhood, she gave to St.
Peter's York and the prebend in Dunnington the homage and service of
Sir Godefrey de Louvain for land in Marton". (The source given is York Minster Fasti
i, 71 no.25.) Marton was the home ground of this Flamville family,
and evidently the barony of Little Easton had some interest in it after
this point. It is also remarked that in 1251 there was a dispute
between the de Flamvilles and de Louvains about a free tenement in
Norton. In 1231
Matilda de Flamvill and Matthew de Louvain, contested the advowson of Bildeston.
5. Richard de Hastings, his brother Alexander, and Ralph de Hastings in the generation of William fitz Robert.
Although Keats-Rohan only says that "Ricardus de Hastings"
was "perhaps" a brother of William fitz Robert de Hastings, Landon and Clarence Smith inform
us that a Richard
is clearly named as such in the ancient deed A.13881. Richard
was requesting that his brother William should grant land in Wix to Walter
Maskerel son of their uncle Walter Maskerel. Furthermore there is a
witness named Richard de Hastings who must be this same person. That makes
him one of the first in the family to be found using the name de
Hastings, and possibly the first. The Hastings surname will be discussed below
brother of a Richard de Hastings named Alexander is mentioned in a
charter A.13760, discussed by Clarence Smith (p.102). This Richard de
Hastings granted 20 acres in Bildeston to Wix, for "the salvation
of the souls of my father and my mother and my own soul and the soul of
my brother Alexander". No other mention is known of this Alexander, who
Clarence Smith interprets as a brother of William fitz Robert. The
charter also has a Ralph de Hastings, not described as a brother
despite the nature of the grant, but appearing in a position
before Alexander de Wikes. Ralph may be the same one who had one and a
half knight's fees under William fitz Robert in 1159 (Red Book p.730
which Clarence Smith reasons to be in Bildeston. A Ralph and a
Richard appear as witnesses in that order in Henry II's confirmation
charter to Wix, A.13947. And Richard alone appears as witness to Henry
II's further confirmations to various grants in A.5268
Smith inserts Ralph as a brother of William fitz Robert and his brother
Richard. But he clearly had at least some doubts about this. Queries.
Could it be relevant that Landon proposes that Robert fitz Walter's
widow, who may have been the source of the Hastings surname, possibly
settled in Bildeston?
This charter A.5268
calls it Cartae Antiquae
L.2.31.16, Clarence Smith also refers to it as Bishop No. 448) is
one of the charters mentioned above concerning the grant to Wix of
"Sydriches Hey". It seems therefore relevant that Brooke's charter 1,
(E42/356 i) is a similar document which
includes Richardo de Hastinges milite
(soldier) as a witness, implying he was a knight. A difficulty arises (Clarence Smith
p.103) because during
the 12th century there was a Richard de Hastings who was Master of the
Templars in England 1154-1180 and an important agent of church and
government, and as such he could be expected to appear on some types of
charters. Indeed it seems he was linked to a Ralph de Hastings, who
granted the Templars Hurst in Yorkshire. It
is not known which Hastings family Richard belonged to, but it is known
that the Warwickshire Hastings also had a Richard (Dugdale thought him
rector of Barwell in Leicestershire). Below it will be noted that a
Richard associated with the Little Easton family is once apparently referred to as a
Magister, which would normally mean a high level cleric in this context.
Concerning the templar, who could presumably be called both a knight and a master (magister), Charter 10, Gervers (1996), Cartulary of the Knights of St John
II. mentions him involved in a land grant to the Templars which came
from a William de Hastings. Keats-Rohan associates this record with
William de Hastings "the dispensator", but as Rosie Bevan points out to
me, the templar was also involved with not only a Ralph de Hastings in
Yorkshire (a name found in several Hastings families) but also a Robert
de Hastings in Waterbeach Cambridgeshire, who is named specifically as
a kinsman. The name Robert seems more typical of the Little Easton
family in this period, and we can see how the Richard in this family,
if he was the templar, had an important nephew named Robert.
6. Alice, Agnes and Emma, potential heiresses.
proposes two sisters to William fitz Robert, Alice and Emma, apparently based
on the lead of Landon (p.176) who mentions them as witnesses
to A.13883 and A.13893, which Clarence Smith describes as copies with
differences (p.10). These were confirmations by William fitz
his wife Helewise, and their son and heir Robert, of the grant
Alexander de Waham of his wife's share of Wix to the nuns there.
Clarence Smith (p.103) adds A.13780 as another charter relevant to
these confirmations, and another, A.5266
where they witness a further grant from Alexander to Ralph "at Eistan after the death of William the lord".
With the extra evidence, Clarence Smith adds an extra lady, making it three: "Alice, wife of George;
Agnes wife of Silvester; and Emma, wife of Walter de Exeter" (appearing
in that order of seniority). The implication of their needing to witness this
charter is that they had a potential claim on the properties being
discussed, once Alexander de Waham (the grantor) died. Instead of being sisters, based on timing considerations, at
least concerning the youngest one Emma, Clarence Smith thought it
more likely that these ladies were actually daughters of William fitz
Robert from a first sonless marriage (p.103). Dodwell, p.156, in
her careful style, points out that Emma
could even be a relative of Maurice de Windsor's heir, "Ralph II de Hastings"
discussed in pedigrees 6-8 below) again raising the question of whether
Maurice had, in effect, several heirs. I wonder if it is really
impossible that these
three ladies might be daughters of Alexander who had been paid off to
accept this sale (although then presumably the wording of the charter
might have made this more clear). I also wonder, taking on board
Clarence Smith's proposal that Alexander did not have the same mother
as Robert fitz Walter, if they might not be nieces of Alexander who
were more closely related to him than William fitz Robert (descended
from his mother and father and not just from his father). On the other
hand we have no evidence of the surname Hastings in Alexander's branch
of the family, though it is used by Alice and Emma at least, and no
evidence that Alexander had any closer relatives.
Concerning Emma, A.13859 is a grant by the son of an Emma de Hastings
named Ranulf, also mentioning his sister Amabel. This Emma's seal says
"(E)MMA ASTINGE" (Clarence Smith p.103). Landon, Clarence Smith and
Keats-Rohan think this is the same Emma who was married to Walter de
Excestre. Concerning this couple, Brook, p.56 says that Dodwell
believed them to be parents of Ralph de Exon, one of
the claimants to Wix found in Curia Regis
cases versus Ralph de Hastings (see pedigree 4), and Clarence Smith
agrees (p.7). (So Emma not only had a potential claim on Ralph's land
in Wix, but her son apparently made a claim.) Dodwell (p.156 n.4)
says that their heir took the name Alexander de Hastings, while their
other children used versions of the father's name. Clarence Smith
apparently read the evidence differently, saying their original heir
was named Alexander de Exeter, citing A.13696, A.13697, and A.13698.
seems remarkable that Ralph de Exon had a mill in Purleigh, the tithe
and mulcture of which he granted to Wix priory (Brooke Charter 3,
Dodwell p.156, n.3). Query. Could Ralph de Exeter be the same one who married Amabilis de Hastings? According to sources such as Douglas Richardson's Magna Carta Ancestors, a charter from Fowler Cartulary of the Abbey of Old Wardon,
dated around 1200-1210, says that she had a mill in free marriage in
Blunham. Blunham was one of the lands associated with Hastings
family who were dapifers of Bury.
Rosie Bevan believes this is the same Ralph, and that this marriage can
be helpful in excluding some options - because it implies that Ralph
and Emma can not have had the same recent direct ancestors due to the
strictness of consanguinity rules at this time.
7. The children of William fitz Robert.
Robert de Hastings.
Genealogists using old sources should keep in mind that Robert de
Hastings' position in this tree is another area where, despite previous
authors like Clark getting it right, the harsh judgement of Round
concerning Clark kept people confused at least until Landon, and in
fact the confusion continues. Round and other authors of the past
(going back past Morant at least to a Tudor pedigree in 1582 which
Round cited) were in the habit of claiming Robert married into
this family (though ironically his wife's name was not known) bringing
the Hastings surname with him. Both Sanders and the Complete Peerage
followed Round without citing him. Landon (p.176) points to charters
A.S.301, A.13883, A.13893, and A.13984 as examples where the son and
heir of William fitz Robert and his wife Helewisa is named Robert de
Hastings, and Landon points out (p.178) that this disagrees with Round.
Clarence Smith (pages 4-5) takes a different approach to making this point, focussing
on the evidence from the period where Robert de Hastings' mother had
re-married, and he was still being referred to in ways that make it
clear that this inheritance had come to him from his father.
de Hastings of Wix will be discussed further in the next pedigree,
because he is an important character in the last phases of this 12th
century family, and discussion of him can be usefully connected to the Curia Regis
evidence. As an heir of his father's uncle Alexander de Waham he has also been discussed above.
cites "Ancient Deed" A.13894 as a specific charter naming Ralf and John
brothers of Robert de Hastings, whereas another brother Alexander is
according to Landon identified in A.13694. It is A.13694 which is cited
by Keats-Rohan (DD "Robert de Hastings"
for the names of these
three brothers, plus also she adds another brother, William. Clarence Smith's
detailed description of the contents of this charter (p.102) makes it
clear that it can not have mentioned any William, especially if we
consider that his article attempted to be comprehensive in going
through the ancient deeds to fill in gaps. (And Clarence Smith would
surely have mentioned such a William on p.13 when trying to explain a
witness named William de Hastinkes.) Clarence Smith (p.102)
describes A.13694 as a grant by an Alexander de Hastings, "with the
consent of 'Robert my brother' of 20 acres in Purley to 'Ranulf my
brother', which Ranulf had formerly held of 'my father' ". On this
charter Richard Hastings "Magister" is a witness, and named as an
, and "Ralph my brother" is the last witness. Query. Given that Purleigh is involved, might Ralf de Hastings heir of Maurice de Windsor somehow be involved with this family? How can Robert de Hastings be lord over these 20 acres?
I have not included William de Hastings as a son of William fitz
Robert above, although Keats-Rohan (and only Keats-Rohan) suggests it.
She also suggests that
Amabilis de Hastings who married Richard fitz
Robert Foliot and Richard de Exeter was a daughter and I have also not
included her. Amabilis had a mill in Blunham, Bedfordshire, which was one
of the possessions held by the dapifers of Bury. Such difficulties in
Keats-Rohan Hastings pedigree are discussed below in pedigree 7. And
the Hastings dapifers of Bury, the heirs of Maurice de Windsor who
possessed Blunham etc are discussed further at length in the second
section of the article.
Concerning Beatrice, Robert's sister, Landon cited
A.13769, A.13770, and A.13771. (Keats-Rohan, mistakenly cites Monasticon
and Rotulus de Oblatis
concerning Beatrice, in the entry for her father"Willelm de Hastings"
All three of these citations are in fact concerning
or Maud de Flamville, the wife of Robert de Hastings. The two sets
of citations appear in nearby footnotes in Landon, and Keats-Rohan
apparently inserted the wrong ones.) Clarence Smith (p.104) describes
A.13770 as mentioning that Beatrice had a share in some land of her
brother Robert in Westfirth, and he relates this to a Final Concord
from Essex in 1198 or 1199: 10th year of Richard I (Essex No.45), Essex Feet of Fines
I, p.14 and Pipe Rolls Society 24
No. 6, saying that this land "must have been the 12 acres between the
land there of Ralph de Cornhill and Ralph de Hastings which she granted
to the nuns of Wix, and which her son William Carbonel confirmed".
Clarence Smith also makes it clear that her two husbands
are mentioned in the other two charters mentioned by Landon,
A.13769 and A.13771.
the first marriage of Robert's heiress Alicia, to Ralph de Cornhill,
Landon (p.177) mentions the Calender
of Charter Rolls
PRS Vol.17, A.D. 1191, and the Curia
, Vol.1, p.61, A.D. 1198; p.318, A.D. 1199.
Concerning her second marriage to Godfrey de Louvain, Landon and Clark
both cite Rot Obl.
p.24; Clark also cites Hist. of Exch.
I.515. Concerning Alicia's counter offer not to be married Landon
cites Rot Obl.
p.37, but apparently the marriage went ahead and a note quoted by Landon
suggests that she got her money back. As usual, Clarence Smith gives much more detailed citations (pages 1 and 2).
From the charter evidence for pedigree 2 (for example A.5275, Clark's
L2,31,10), it is known that William fitz Robert
in pedigree 3 called Walter
Mascherel and Alexander of Wix in the first pedigree his
and so it was long known that the first two pedigrees must connect.
However, Clark showed in detail that a legal case reported in
of the Curia Regis rolls in the time of King Richard and King John
allows us to have confidence that Robert was
brother to Alexander Wix, as argued by Keats-Rohan. While Keats-Rohan does
not mention this source, she is aware of the legal claims of Sewallis
de Oseville through other sources such as Dodwell, as shown in her entry for "Alexander
de Wikes" (DD),
and his sister "Edith
soror Alexandri de Wikes" (DD). As with the charter evidence, concerning these legal cases Clarence Smith delved into more detailed than his predecessors.
pedigree 4. The lords of the Barony of Little Easton, including Wix, as
described in the Curia Regis rolls (approximately 1199-1200)
Notes for this pedigree.
- The evidence from one legal case gives the above pedigree.
Sewallis de Oseville brought the case against Ralph de Hastings of Wix,
concerning half a knights fee in Wix. The Curia Regis rolls Vol. I p. 318
reports that it was explained that "Rob~ de Hasting' ", direct
ancestor of Ralph, enfeoffed his brother Alexander in Wix. A later
report Vol. II p. 254
instead calls Ralph's ancestor "Rob~ de Estań". Also see several entries in the Feet of Fines for Essex,
edited by R. E. G. Kirk. Dodwell
(p.152) was aware of this evidence
but stated that evidence from lawsuits was often inaccurate. Of
it is true that any kind of documentary
evidence can be wrong. However, in this
case we not only have the claim of de Oseville, but also the defense
positions and it would seem very unlikely that the wrong
relationship between Robert and Alexander would have been agreed upon
by all parties. Furthermore, as Clarence Smith discusses at length the
way in which Sewallis chose to make his argument was very weak given
that he had to admit Ralph's direct descent from the more recent tenant
and it seems incomprehensible that he would not have mentioned any
possible reason to doubt this. "There was nothing at all to compel
recite the one connection which was the most disadvantageous to him of
all the possibilities - nothing except the truth, to the knowledge of
any jury. If ever there was a 'declaration against interest' it is this
the case versus the de Osevilles, there is mention of another
related case about Wix involving one Ralph de Exon (de Exeter, son of
Emma de Hastings discussed above) that he had already settled and
which the de Oseville's had not protested.
Clark reads it as relating to a part of the half knights fee. Clarence
Smith (p.7) says there is a final concord 24 April 1189 showing it
records a compromise settlement of 10 marks paid by Ralph.
to Clarence Smith a writ must also have been granted in 1194 or late
1193 recognizing that Ralph de Hastings held a half a fee in Wix, and in 1198 a writ
then summoned a jury to determine "if Robert de Hastings brother of the
aforesaid Ralph had mere custody of half a knight's fee in Wiches
which was of Walter Makerell and the same Ralph while the same Ralph
was under age ... which land the same Ralph claims against Ralph de
Cornhull and Alice his wife, daughter of the aforesaid Robert de
Hastings" (Clarence Smith p.7). So as a further confirmation of links
between the above pedigrees, we can also
note that during this period this other legal case concerning the same
rights in Wix clearly names
"Robert de Hasting'" as Alicia’s father and Ralf’s brother.
It also interestingly connects the half fee under discussion to
(clearly the second such Walter, as Clarence Smith notes p.101) and not
As settlement, Clarence Smith explains, Ralph granted "maritagium" for
William Carbonel (a nephew of Ralph and Robert as discussed
Clark points out, the fact that Ralf the son of Alexander's nephew
William fitz Robert effectively became his heir was also recorded in charters, and
in the old history of Essex by Morant. For example, the modern description of ancient deed A.5266 (Clark says L,2,31,7, but Clarence Smith says p.12 that he should have written L.2.31.6.), is a "Grant by
Alexander de Waham, to Ralph son of William, of land acquired and
purchased by the grantor round Wikes viz. the land of Horiselle and of
Cokeseie." Clark and Clarence Smith cite Morant as saying that William
fitz Robert had
given Alexander 30 marks of silver and one saddle horse for this, so
the grant was in execution of an agreement made before William the
lord died - a sale, not a simple inheritance. Landon and Clarence Smith (p.9) point also to
A.13894 in which Ralph de Hastings confirms a charter to the nuns of
Wix made by his father's avunculus (in this case not meaning a maternal uncle, but a paternal uncle).
the son of Alexander, was alive in his father's lifetime. For example
he witnessed Charter 10 in Vol.1 of Gervers Cartulary of the Knights of
(not the same charter as mentioned above in Volume II) [CHECK].
As discussed by Clarence-Smith (p.13), a William fitz Alexander was
also the second last witness on William fitz Robert's confirmation of
his father's grant to his
mother of a third of Wix as dower - a confirmation obviously made long
after the marriage itself. The 18th century historian Morant
apparently saw evidence that Alexander had no heir, but the Curia
Regis account put that in doubt. Brooke and Dodwell in Medieval Miscellany for Doris Stenton
seem to feel that this apparent difference between sources on this
small point means we should question everything else in these sources.
Keats-Rohan cites the discussion but her COEL entry simply says William
his father but was dead without issue by 1193". Clark came to the same
conclusion. Clarence Smith simply thinks de Oseville made a relatively
minor error, because he does not think Alexander could have made all
the arrangements he did to grant lands to his nephew's son, if his heir
was still alive.
was suggested by Clark (p.135)
that Edith may be the sister of
Alexander who was mother to the first Sewallis de Oseville, shown in
pedigree 4. Clark knew of no other husbands, but Keats-Rohan who knows
of two husbands for Edith, also mentions that no other sister of
of Wix is known who could be the Oseville wife, and seems to think it
possible it was Edith's third husband.
Clarence Smith (p.112) thinks it will have been a younger sister, but
then it is strange that she is never named in so many charters. Clark
suggested that this sister's
husband may have been the Walter
de Oseville who witnessed Maurice's
grant of the dapifership, and Clarence Smith also thought that likely.
pedigree 5. Connecting the main parts of a
pedigree for the Hastings family of the Barony of Little Easton.
The first two pedigrees can now be combined in a convincing and
logical manner using the third one.
Notes for this pedigree.
- Concerning Robert de Windsor's wife, Landon, and apparently
following him, Moriarty, and Keats-Rohan, believed that if Round
wrong about Robert being a son of Walter fitz Other (which was not
certain to Landon and Moriarty, neither of whom looked into the legal evidence), then he
must have married a daughter of Walter fitz Other, the castellan of Windsor. This
is in order to explain why Robert used the name "de Windsor". On
the other hand, this seems only one possible explanation for that name,
and it seems arbitrary to use this explanation only
for this name. For
example, using this explanation for this specific name would deny us
using a similar explanation to answer the question of why two of
Robert's sons were called de Hastings. Overall, as is often
remarked, these generations in this family used second names in ways
which are not fully understood. (That the names all came from wives
seems to be a possibility often considered, but never clearly argued.
It would be unusual.)
- Concerning the surname Hastings no-one seems to have any convincing
explanation. Keats-Rohan suggests that "Robert de Windresor" (DP) married a
daughter of Walter fitz Other, but confusingly then also states that
maybe his wife is the source of the Hastings surname to their children.
The first person in the family to use it seems to have been Richard de
Hastings, (A.13881, discussed under pedigree 3). There is no obvious inheritance that
might have come in to the family via Richard, along with this surname. Although the Hastings surname only started to be
used by the
family around this time, Landon points out (p.178) that
Round was clearly quite wrong when he asserted with apparent
confidence, in his criticism of Clark, that a daughter of William fitz
Robert had brought the Barony of Little Easton to a Hastings husband. Nevertheless Sanders in his Baronies
(p.130) continued this misunderstanding as late as 1960, (despite
citing Landon, and not Round) and it is widespread on the internet.
Clarence Smith (p.107) on the other hand approves of a suggestion that
if the name came by marriage, it most likely came from the mother of
William fitz Robert and his brother Richard. On the other hand, he also
suggests that it may have simply been a re-working of the designation
"de Estanes", "a conjecture supported by the alternative forms in
Sewall de Oseville's two pleadings (de Hastings and de Estanes, the
latter in the later pleading), and by the form Aistan repeated from
Pipe Roll to Pipe Roll in relation to Hugh de Flamville's debt for
custody of the last Robert's widow." If the spelling was adapted
because it was considered "more elegant" as Clarence Smith suggests,
then it may have been influenced by the presence of a family of this
name in Essex (tenants of Roger de Raimes in 1086), or indeed by
knowledge of the family who inherited Maurice de Windsor's dapifership
- It is tempting to suggest that there might be a story here which somehow links to Richard de Hastings,
master of the templars, given that he may have been the same as the
Richard in the above pedigree, and he may have been the first in the
family to start using the surname very consistently.
Continuation of this family?
It is not clear that this particular Hastings family had any
descendants who would have used the Hastings surname.
Morant, speculated that this Walter may
have also been present in Warwickshire as "Walter de Hastings" (with a
wife Helewise) and become the
ancestor of the Hastings family who were heirs of Maurice the dapifer
of Bury. This drew the scorn of Round, and at least this aspect
of Clark's article is criticized by Clarence Smith also. Landon believed
that his descendents used the name
"de Excestre". This disagrees with the understanding of Dodwell,
Brooke, and Clarence Smith who show that the de Exeters joined the
family when one of them married Emma de Hastings. Round, in his
1903 article about Colne
in Essex, argued that Walter settled there after marrying an
heiress, Ermengard, whose ancestor Robert held it and Birch Hall at
Domesday, both manors coming by this time under the Honour of Boulogne.
(Round seems not to note that part of Colne Engaine was
one of Walter the deacon's holdings in 1086. On the other hand,
Round also refers to Birch Hall as a connected holding.) Clarence Smith who was unforunately
apparently not aware of Round's article also thought this was the same
Walter, or perhaps his son Walter. Concerning the surname Maskerel on
the other hand,
there was an Essex family in the Honour of Clare since Domesday. Round
seems correct in his criticism of Clark's attempts to connect all the
Essex Maskerel's to Walter the Deacon. Keats
Rohan calls the ancestor of the Maskerel families in Clare "Canevaz Mascerel" (DP).
Clarence Smith says (p.101) that whenever he died, the younger Walter
Mascerel left no heir. Round, concerning Colne Engaine, does not mention any heir.
John de Hastings, who represented his brother Ralf for some of his
legal dispute, Landon suggested he was probably the rector of
Bildeston, which he felt to be the family's "dower manor". I presume he suggests this
because of the fact that, for example in E
know that John who was parson in Bildeston was given special treatment
for his lifetime concerning a grant of parish income to the nuns in
Wix. Clark, citing Morant, says he had the advowson there (p.238).
He certainly appears to be a close relative of Alice, who at that time
was still married to Ralf de Cornhill (son of "Gervaise de Cornhill",
who had been queen's chamberlain). Clark on the
other hand speculates that John is ancestor to the family who took up
the surname of Godmanstone, in the Dorset manor which was part of the
Little Easton barony. That would not likely have been compatible with being a parish priest.
- Concerning Ralf de Hastings in Wix ("Radulf II de Hastings" DD),
he apparently became increasingly the family representative there, as
shown in Dugdale's Monasticon
from charters in the time of Godfrey de Louvain. Clark thought he died with no children (p.134).
But Clarence Smith corrects this impression, and quoting various
sources he explains (p.8) that: "He was dead by Michaelmas 1210,
leaving a daughter under age whose custody and marriage had been granted
to Alan Bassett for 100 marks. It is not therefore surprising to find
at the death of Sir Philip Basset of Wycombe, younger son of this Alan,
in 1271, that he held under Sir Matthew de Lovaine the manor of Wix 'by
courtesy of England of the inheritance of Helewisia his wife'." (The
courtesy of England was a legal custom in England meaning husbands
could hold the inheritance of their wives sometimes.) Her heir was
Aline who married twice, to Hugh le Dispencer and to Roger Bigod Earl
of Norfolk, and Aline's heir, also named Hugh le Dispencer, was a
famous favourite to King Edward II, and "Wix was forfeited with the
rest of his possessions on his execution in 1326".
- Keats-Rohan speculates that the Robert de Windsor found in mid 12th century charters
be another son to Robert fitz Walter de Windsor, and father to "William fitz Robert"
who was major tenant under Robert de Hastings in Godmanstone, co. Dorset,
and in Bromley, co. Essex. (He held 4 of the 10 knights fees in Robert's
Barony in the Cartae
Baronem.) This entry in the Cartae Baronem (it
appears in both the red and black books of the exchequer) was
apparently misinterpreted by Clark (p.139), as being from an earlier generation, and in
Keats-Rohan's terms the charter of "Robert
de Windresore" (DD),
and not his grandson "Robert
de Hastings" (DD). Therefore he over-looked that this could not have been the known William fitz Robert who
married Helewise de Guerres, but must be someone else closely connected to the family. Round,
this error in his article on the origin of the Carthews, after it was repeated
by H. J. T. Wood, asserts that this William fitz Robert must be the
ancestor of the family who took up the surname of Godmanstone.
I note however that William fitz Robert in
Godmanstone who might
be the ancestor of the Godmanstone family, shared the same
the third husband of Helewise de Guerres. (That husband was however apparently from Yorkshire.) Such a marriage could only
have taken place after 1178 when Keats-Rohan informs us that
second husband Gilbert de Pinkenny had died. 1178 would be after the
normal date of 1166 given for the document in the Cartae Baronem,
although Round thought the conventional dates too early, and Clarence
concurs and specifies that it must have been around 1177 (p.2). The
earliest member of the
Godmanstone family whom Clark identifies is Robert de Godmanstone,
farming there in 1184-5. But Clarence Smith says that the predecessor
of William fitz Robert in Godmanston was named Robert fitz William, and
he held the manor until 1176, as he owed 2 marks forest fine then as
recorded in the Pipe Rolls.
- One of this family's men probably did have male Hastings children who stayed in the area, because E40/3316,
as late as 19 Henry III (about 1235) involves a Robert de Hastinges
oweing money to the nuns of Wikes. Clarence Smith (pages 117-118) also
notes a Robert de Hastinges much earlier, still in the 12th century,
who held Swilland, which had previously been held by a de Windsor
family who Clarence Smith believed to be related to the castellans of
Windsor castle, the family of Walter fitz Other. This Robert, Clarence
Smith suggests may have really married a Windsor heiress.
Concerning connections between this family and the later baronial line
of Hastings families, see the next section.
2. The Hastings hereditary dapifers of the Abbey of Bury St
from the shared surname (the origins of which are unknown in both
cases) Maurice de Windsor is the one known link between the Little
discussed above, and the two most well-known Hastings families
the 12th century, Earls of Pembroke, and Earls of Huntingdon. He was
related by marriage somehow. Whatever else they possessed, they were
heirs in his
dapifership of Bury St Edmunds, and one of them called him an avunculus. Although there are various proposals
concerning how else to
connect the two Hastings families, none seem to have
yet created a consensus. So we need to start with Maurice de Windsor
and his heirs.
"Maurice de Windresor"
was dapifer from about 1114-1119 until about 1155. He has been
discussed already above as husband of Edith in pedigree 2. He is
frequently assumed to be a son of
Walter fitz Other, the castellan of Windsor castle, to whom the barons
of Little Easton owed 10 knights fees of castle guard.11. Maurice received Lidgate and Blunham,
as part of his dapifership inheritance granted by Abbot Abbold between
1115 and 1119, and confirmed by King Stephen. In his grant, the abbot
also added the 2 knights fees of lands that had belonged to Ivo
de Gissing. Ralph de Hastings, heir to Maurice, still held the
dapifership for 5 knights fees in 1166, and these 5 fees passed on to
later Hastings, always linked to the dapifership.13. These 5 knights fees under Bury were
clearly not the only lands of Maurice. It is hard to track such things
in his period, but Eyton (p. 136) pointed out that in 1130 he must have
held lands in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Bedfordshire,
Northamptonshire, Dorsetshire, Berkshire, and Middlesex,
he was excused from Danegeld in these counties in Pipe Rolls
31 Henry I (1130/31). Later, the charter confirming his inheritance going to
Ralph de Hastings was addressed to the King's lieges in all those
counties except the last three. From his dapifer lands we only know he had land in Norfolk, Suffolk and Bedfordshire.
"Ralph II de Hastings"
was not included in the pedigree of the Hastings baronial line by
Dugdale, and Eyton (followed by Clark and Moriarty) felt it worth
remarking this point, because Ralph was clearly an important person who
appears in many records. Presumably the reason is that none of those
records directly mentions his father, mother, wife, siblings, nor any
children. Dodwell appears to be the first to identify Ralph's wife as "Lescelina de Trailly"
(DD), and Clarence Smith and Keats-Rohan accept this identification.
Bacton charter 8 is a charter by Ralph where Lescelina de Trayli "my
wife" is first witness. This charter is intriguing because in this case
Ralph is granting the isle of "Sydritheseye" and appurtenances in
"Purleie" to the nuns of Wix. This is clearly a reconfirmation of the
grants made by Maurice and his wife Edith. Keats-Rohan dates the charter between 1154
know that during the chaotic reign of King Stephen, in 1152, a Ralph de
Hastings, along with an apparent close relative named William, granted
his manor of Hurst in Yorkshire to the templars, such that it
came to be known as Templehurst.
Because this is very consistent with a Ralph who had an heir named
William, this Ralph and William look very much the ones who were
dapifers of Bury. It is often assumed that Ralph was also related to
Richard de Hastings then, who was Master of
the Templars. (But this does not help clarify which Hastings family
Richard was in, because Ralph was clearly related to the Little Easton
family given that he was heir to Maurice.) On the internet it is clear
that there is
a common belief that Ralf was responsible for fortifying his manor of
Lidgate during the anarchy. When Ralph was granted the dapifership of
Bury, he already had a job as
kind of dapifer to
Queen Eleanor, which earned him of corrody in several counties in
1155-1158, as shown in the Pipe Rolls.
"Hugo de Hastings" (DD)
or Hugh de Hastings appears in contemporary records because of his marriage
with Erneburga de Flamville ("Nepte Roberti de Flamville" DD). About 1129/30, Hugh and Erneburga
inherited from Erneburga's uncle Robert, what he had been enfeoffed
with by Bishop Robert de Limesi of Coventry, in Burbage,
Leicestershire, and Birdingbury, Warwickshire. They also inherited
other lands, it seems, including Ashton-Flamville in Leicestershire.
Keats-Rohan cites him appearing in the 1130/31 Pipe Rolls of King
Henry I, two entries in Leicestershire, one in Buckinghamshire, one in
Warwickshire, and one in Middlesex, which (referring to
Eyton) apparently included exemptions from Danegeld in those
places. In the p.87 entry for Leicestershire, Eyton (p.136)
also says Hugh "accounted for 90 merks and 2 destriers, being the whole
or the balance of a Fine which he had given to the King 'for having the
land and the neice of Robert de Flamenvill'." In the Middlesex entry Hugh is listed next to Maurice de Windesor. Clark (p.243)
reports that Robert de Flamvill had been a Norman knight attached to
Grantmaisnel. Moriarty says that Robert de Lemesi was bishop 1100-1117.
Clark cites Dugdale's Warwickshire to the effect that Erneburga granted
Birdingbury and the church of Barwell to Polesworth, to whom the
earlier Walter de Hastings had also been patron. Dugdale directs us to a Patent Roll inspeximus
of Richard II concerning the Barwell grant. The Patent Rolls Calendar tells us that
Erneburga made these grants as the mother of William de Hastings, and
with the assent of Richard his son. Dugdale makes this Richard the son
of Hugo, not William, and refers to him as the rector of Barwell. Query. Might the Calendar be in error?
pedigree 6. Ancestors of the baronial Hastings families, and
their connection to the dapifers of Bury.
The dapifers of Bury St Edmunds are in red.
This pedigree is based
on a straightforward interpretation of the small number of sources
which seem most clear. It is consistent with many published pedigrees
(notably the respected Eyton and Carthew),
but not all; and most not notably it disagrees with that of Keats-Rohan
(pedigree 7 below), because it makes Ralf the queen's steward the son of a William, and not
of Robert fitz Walter, and it makes his nephew William the son of Hugh, not of William fitz Robert.
Notes for this pedigree.
We must be careful to note that the Flamvills may be a coincidence.
Flamvill heiresses married both Robert de Hastings of the Little Easton
Hastings, and Hugh de Hastings of Leicestershire and Warwickshire.
Furthermore Flamvilles make frequent appearances in the family business
of the dapifer Hastings of Bury. But in Clay's Early Yorkshire Families, which looks primarily at the Yorkshire Flamvilles that married into the Little Easton Hastings, the authors do not see any connection between these and the Leicestershire Flamville lines. Interesting, the book does speculate
that there must be a connection between Henry de Hastings of this
family and Robert de Hastings of Little Easton, noting an 1188 document
where Henry is together with two
Hugh de Flamvilles, one "of Fryton", and one a son of an Alan,
concerning a loan. These two Flamvills are of the Yorkshire Flamvill family
which married the Little Easton Hastings family. (Clarence Smith also notes this
- Two charters
for example in Douglas' edition of charters relating to Bury, explain the line of inheritance of the dapifership of Bury. As
discussed already above the two important relationships these mention
are firstly that Maurice de Windsor was the maternal uncle (avunculus, which can also just mean uncle) of Ralf
de Hastings, his heir, and secondly that Ralf de Hastings was the
paternal uncle (patruus, a less common word)
of his heir, William de Hastings. Eyton appears to be the first to have noticed that
royal charters confirming the descent of the dapifership of Bury named
two relatives, Maurice de Windsor his maternal uncle and predecessor as
dapifer, and secondly William de Hastings who was Ralph's successor and
nephew. The pedigree above follows
Eyton, Clark, Keats-Rohan and others in taking the contrast between the two words for uncle literally, as seems intended.
The charters also inform that Ralf de Hastings was already dapifer to
the Queen when he inherited this new function from his uncle, and
William was dispensator to the King when he in turn inherited the Bury dapifership from Ralf. Eyton
estimated that these two inheritances took place in 1155 and 1166. By comparison, Eyton in his Henry II itinerary says
that William the steward (and dispensator) starts appearing in royal records already in
1159, after Ralf his uncle stopped appearing 1158. Note
that in this pedigree no irregularity needs to be assumed concerning
the inheritance of the dapifership, as long as we accept that Maurice
de Windsor and Ralf de Hastings had no male heirs of their own. In other words,
both Ralf de Hastings and William de Hastings were apparently the heirs
of their own fathers, not just of their childless uncles.
source for the male line of William to Hugh to William is,
at least for the first
generation, is a much-cited royal charter reported p.574 of William Dugdale's Baronage,
published in 1675 and 1676. Dugdale cites the collection of
Robert Glover Somerset Herald, which is today dispersed between many
collections. It described the inheritances of the
grandson named William,
confirmed by Henry II. Dugdale gave exceptional sourcing notes for his
or any time, with even parts of sentences referenced to notes in the
margins. I reproduce the opening passage of Dugdale's Hastings entry
The first of this Family of whom I find mention, is William de Hastings, Stewarda to King Henry the First. Which Office he heldb by Serjeantie, in respect of his Tenure of the Mannor of Ashele, in Com. Norff. viz. by the Service of taking charge of the Naperie (id est, the Table-clothes and Linen) at the Solemn Coronations of the Kings of this Realm.All of these references except for "b" say "Ex Coll. Gl. S." (from the collection of Glover Somerset). (Note "b" mentions Testa de Nevill and the Close Rolls
of 15 R 2. So it refers to later generations where there are records of
the naperie duties.) The Glover charter or charters therefore apparently named
the grandfather William de
Hastings and were apparently clear he was a steward to King Henry the First. In the next
generation the charter mentioned his son Hugh de Hastings,
living in the time of Henry I (ruled 1100-1135),
and his wife Erneburga de Flamville, a couple who can be confirmed from
It also mentioned lands given to Robert de Flamenville, the uncle of
Erneburga, in the time of
Henry I by Robert de Limesi, Bishop of Coventry. I am not sure if the
charter can still be traced or whether Eyton, Clark or Moriarty saw
it, but all of them understand this grandson William to be
the same one who was the
King's dispensator, and dapifer to Bury. (Moriarty, in his description,
explicitly says that the charter specifies that it concerns the
"dapifer" of Henry
II.) Keats-Rohan never mentions this charter,
and quite strikingly she distinguishes two contemporaries who
normally considered to be one person: "Willelm filius Hugonis de
Hastings" and "Willelm
de Hastings dispensator" (DD
both p.507). The latter she makes the son of William fitz Robert de Hastings of Little Easton. Query. Where is the charter now?
To whom succeeded Hugh his Son and Heir. Which Hugh obtain'd, by the Giftc of that King, all the Lands of Robert de Flamenvill, with Erneburgh Daughter of Hugh Flamenvill, Niece to the same Robert.
This Hugh had Issued William his Son and Heir, Stewarde also to King Henry the Second; from whom he obtain'd a Confirmationf of all the Lands which William de Hastings his Grandfather (Steward to Keing Henry the First) and Hugh his Father had enjoy'd in the time of that King. As also ofg all the Lands which Robert de Limesi Bishop of Coventre, by the Consent of the Chapter, and Appropriation of King Henry the First, gave to the before-specified Robert de Flamenvill; viz. Burbache, Barewell, and Birdingburie, with their Appurtenances, viz. Scetescleve (now Sketchley) and Eston (now Aston-Flamvill) and Stapelton. Likewiseh his Houses in Coventre, with one Burgess there, and one Croft in Wilie, to hold by the Service of two Knights Fees, as freely as King Henry the First gave them to Hugh de Hastings, his Father, with Erneburgh Daughter of the said Hugh de Flamenvill.
second thing we can say about the grandfather William, or whoever the
father of Ralph and
Hugh de Hastings was, is that he likely married a close relative of
Maurice de Windsor or his wife Edith. This is because Maurice was
to as a maternal uncle of Ralph de Hastings. So it seems the
mother of Ralph was a sister of Maurice. More speculatively, as
discussed above, it could be suggested that a close relative of this
William married Robert fitz Walter of Little Easton, because it was in
the next generation that the Little Easton family started using the
and Clark also
link the first William de Hastings to the losing claim
made before 1130 by a
William de Hastings
for the master marshallship, against Gilbert Marshall and John his son,
the father and elder brother of the famous William Marshall.
On this basis they apparently consider it better confirmed that he was
probably already, like his
grandson, a stewart of some kind to the King.
Eyton believed this William to have passed away around 1130, which is
approximately when his son Hugh married.
- Agnes, sister of Ralph de Hastings, is mentioned in Bacton charter 8. Ralph made her a nun of Wix.
there may well be a link between the two Flamvill families, but for now
it is as mysterious as the link between the two Hastings families, and
does not provide us with more solid ground.
pedigree 7. Keats-Rohan's proposed linking of the Hastings of Bury, to the
Hastings of Little Easton, (but splitting the Bury
from the Hastings family of Hugh and Erneburga)
Notes for this pedigree.
Keats-Rohan links Little Easton and the Bury dapifers, without
making it clear how these then link, if at all, to the later "baronial
line" of Hastings. To do this,
she makes three surprising innovations, which have apparently drawn
much less attention
than her handling of the question concerning Walter the deacon being
the father of Robert fitz Walter.
Apart from the lack of evidence to support them, all three of
these innovations are in conflict with the charter described by
Dugdale, at least as it has always been interpreted, and Keats-Rohan
does not mention it. Keats-Rohan also does not attempt to explain the
fact that the heirs of the "two" Williams appear to be the same (at least
by the time of Henry de Hastings, generally considered a grandson of
William the dapifer, who paid to take up the inheritance of his father William de Hastings in 1226).
- "Ralph II of
the dapifer who was heir to Maurice de Windsor, becomes a brother of
William and Richard in the Little Easton family. I have mentioned
above in the Little Easton discussion that I can find no source to
justify this. (Careful readers may note that there was certainly at
least one Ralph in the Little Easton family, a son of William fitz
Robert, not a brother. Clarence Smith even suggests there might have
been a brother also. But p.110 n.187
he specifically says that such a Ralph can not be the one who was heir to
Maurice de Windsor, because his successors held different lands, held
by a different family of Hastings.) Also note that the charter evidence cited by Dugdale names
Ralph the queen's steward's
nephew, William, as having a grandfather named William and a father
named Hugh, which is not compatible with this proposal.
- Keats-Rohan also disconnects these dapifers from the barons
in the midlands by distinguishing two contemporaries who are normally considered to be
one person: "Willelm
filius Hugonis de Hastings" and "Willelm de Hastings dispensator"
- "Willelm de
the dapifer of Bury and dispenser to the King, is made to be a son of
William fitz Robert. As discussed in the Little Easton section above,
the source Keats-Rohan cites is ancient deed A.13694 (E40/13694), which
is cited specifically by Landon and Clarence Smith to name some sons of William fitz Robert.
But they do not report any son named William being mentioned in this charter.
This will be discussed more on the second webpage.
pedigree 8. Clark's proposal to link the Hastings of Bury,
Little Easton and Fillongley in one grand scheme.
Clark, criticised much later by Round, claimed that there was a link between
lines of these two different Hastings families through Walter Maskerel. Clark equates him to a Walter de Hastings
who was living in Warwickshire, mentioned by Dugdale in his
Warwickshire: a Walter de Hastings of Fillongley granted a manor
Mancetre to a Walkeline already by the time of King Stephen (p.774),
and was benefactor to the Nuns of Polesworth in the time of Henry I, granting them Oldbury (p.741,
The date of the surviving charter must be in the period of 1129-1135
according to Clark (p.237).
Dugdale did not claim certainty about the relationship of Walter to
later Hugh, but he did feel certain that Fillongley was the early seat
of the Hastings family. The Hastings dapifers were later possessors of
Fillongley, overlords in Mancetre, and Oldbury (see for example the
inquisitions post mortem for John "senior" and John of Abergavenny), and were benefactors to
Polesworth. Clark noted that between Antiquities of Warwickshire (1656), and Baronage
(1675-6), Dugdale had replaced Walter with William as father of Hugh.
Dugdale clearly had not seen the critical charter(s) from the Glover collection before 1656 because
concerning several of the possessions mentioned in it he mentions
having seen no evidence for this period.
Clark stretched the evidence in order to make Walter (of Antiquities of Warwickshire) the father of William (of Baronage). It seems from the posthumous edition of Warwickshire, based on Dugdale's own notes, that he thought they might be brothers. Moriarty even proposes the
opposite of Clark, that Walter was a son of William.
Round seems to be quite right when he wrote later in life, in 1911, that
the "origin of the later baronial house is still a matter of
speculation". In his footnote he says that Clark's proposals "do not
inspire conviction. Indeed I have torn his theory to pieces", citing
his second Fitzgerald article. Whether or not he truly tore it to
pieces, it seems correct that this theory about the early Warwickshire
Hastings never created any
consensus. Clarence Smith, who defends Clark several times from Round
in his two-part article, considers this specific proposal to be one
that deserved some criticism (p.3 n.29). Walter Maskerel is the link in
this story, but in fact there
appears to be no source which ever describes him with the name "de
rather than Maskerel, and there seems no good reason to equate him to
anyone of that name. The evidence he found in the Midlands,
furthermore, was for a Walter de Hastings who seems too late to be
the first Walter Mascherel and too young to be the grandfather of Hugh
de Hastings. And there are signs that there were more Hastings in the
Midlands region in the 12th century:
- "Aitrop Hasteng" (DD),
son according to Keats-Rohan of Humphrey Hastang. Although this family, long associated with Leamington Hastings
in Warwickshire, are generally
distinguished in later times as being "Hastengs", and not "de
Hastings", 12th and 13th century spellings are not standardized.
This family possessed land in similar parts of the Midlands.
south and nearer the Thames (and indeed Hastings) there were the
Hastings of Eaton in Berkshire, who also had possessions in Oxfordshire
and Gloucestershire, in what was apparently at least once referred to
as the Honour of Hastings. See VCH Berkshire:
"The Oxfordshire land was at Westwell, Yelford and 'Alwardesbury'; that
in Gloucestershire was at Southrop and Farmington."
This is another Hastings family that Clarence Smith says Clark
went too far in, but trying to link them to those in East Anglia. This family is discussed further on the second webpage.
continuation I attempt to explain the generations that come after
William de Hastings, who was, as we have seen, not only the son of Hugh
but also the dapifer of Bury and Steward of the King. Between him and
Henry de Hastings, who took over his family offices in 1226, not
everything is simple.
To jump to the second webpage, click here.
11. This appears to
have been first
asserted by Round in his second article on the Fitzgeralds, and is
accepted by Landon and Keats-Rohan. However, the main evidence appears
to be the
surname, and the connection to the Little Easton barony which served
castle guard to Windsor. But we have shown above that
Keats-Rohan is correct, and Round was wrong: the name "de Windsor" was
not necessarily an inheritable surname. So Maurice's exact relationship
to the castellan
is apparently not certain, although it is quite likely that he has one, and
being a son is quite possible. It
seems even more likely that Maurice is
closely related to
Rainald and Robert de Windsor who witnessed the grant of his
dapifership in Bury (charters 108
also published as RRAN Vol.3 charter
764). (Rainald, according to one
accepted by both Round and Keats-Rohan, might have been steward to
Queen Adeliza, and another son of Walter fitz Other. Dodwell, p.152
n.4, notes that in one charter Queen Adeliza is witnessed by Maurice de
Windsor and Reginald his brother. Robert, in this
case, might simply be the son of Walter
the Deacon.) He is also very likely closely related to the Windsors who
tenants of the Barony of Little Easton in Swilland.
12. "Radulph dapifer Sancti
was dapifer for Bury until about 1114-19. The
Bury charters edited by Douglas
include some charters mentioning this Ralph. Douglas
refers to the evidence about him as "shadowy".
Keats-Rohan cites the following mentions of Ralph
primary documents: Bacton Charters (Dodwell ed.) 5 and 6; Bury Charters
(Douglas ed.) 17,
(dated 1087-1098 by Douglas), 108,
(these last to being the charter confirming his heir Maurice's
inheritance, and dated 1114-19 by Douglas), and 87
(the charter confirming the inheritance of Maurice's heir Ralph de
Hasting, dated 1155 by Eyton); Douglas Social Structure of Medieval
East Anglia no. 40. In
charter 17, in Ralph's own lifetime, King William made a charter
ordering restoration of Lidgate and Blunham to Ralf. (Eyton p.134
thinks it was King William II, who ruled 1087-1100, not William I of
1066-1087; Douglas narrows it to 1087-1098.) These lands were part of
what came to his heir Maurice de Windsor with the dapifership.
Keats-Rohan (DD p.260) speculates that
this Ralph might be the same person as Ralph, the steward of (and
probably also a relation of) "Radulf filius Godrici" (DD), a Norfolk land holder, whose father "Godric Dapifer" (DD) was himself
steward to the Earl of Norfolk, Ralph de Gael, who also may have been a relative. This Godric is discussed
13. Maurice only inherited
3 knights fees, Lidgate, Blunham, and (according to Clark) Herling,
but from the estate of Ivo de Gissing came, according to Clark, Tibbenham and Gissing. This way of splitting up the two sets of fees is perhaps based on the presentation Jocelin of Brakeland uses. Gissing remained
long with Hastings families, chief lordship going to the Earls of
Pembroke, and a manor under them being held by their relatives who
would become Earls of Huntingdon.
14. The charter is clearly too early to be Ralph the son
of William fitz Robert who later held Wix, because the Ralph who
married Lescelina was dead by 1163, as shown in the Pipe Rolls
concerning Fordham in Cambridgeshire. According to Clark, Ralph was enfeoffed by the
King himself of 20 librates in Fordham in Cambridgeshire and 10
librates in Whitham in Somersetshire. (Clark cited Foedera I.41; Eyton
cited the Pipe Rolls
of Henry II. William Farrer in his Feudal Cambridgeshire p.137
cites The Red Book of
the Exchequer p.668.)
As pointed out by Clarence Smith these citations do not seem to prove
the point, at least concerning Witham, which may have involved another
Ralph. But the Pipe
do indicate that Ralph was replaced by Lescelina in
1162, while in Witham he was replaced by a William de Hastings only
some years later. (Clarence Smith thinks this might be the Hastings of
Eaton Hastings in Berkshire, who also used the names Ralph and William
in the 12th century. William and Lescellina
respectively in the 13th year of Henry II (1166), and in the 14th
(1167). In the 15th
(1172) Fordham is still registered as Lescelina's. Witham
seems to no longer be associated with the Hastings after the 14th year.
Key Sources.Brooke, C. N. L. (1960) "Episcopal Charters for Wix Priory", A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton.
Clarence Smith J. A., (1966), "Hastings of Little Easton (part 1)", Transactions
of the Essex Archaeological Society. Vol. 2, Part 1.
Clarence Smith, J. A. (1968),
"Hastings of Little Easton (concluded)", Transactions
of the Essex Archaeological Society. Vol. 2, Part 2.
Clark, G. T. C. (1869), "The Rise and Race of Hastings" (in 3
Journal, Vol. 26. [archive.org
Davis, R. H. C. (1954), The Kalendar of Abbot Samson of Bury St. Edmunds and Related Documents.
Dodwell, B. (1960) "Some Charters Relating to the Honour of Bacton", A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton.
Douglas, D. C. (1932), Feudal
documents from the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds. [Hathitrust
Dugdale, W. (1656), Antiquities of Warwickshire. [archive.org links for p.741, p.774,
Dugdale, W. (1675-6), The baronage of England, [link for Bigod and Hastings; there is also a separate account for the Hastings line of Gissing and Allerston]
Dugdale, W. (1730), Antiquities of Warwickshire ("corrected" version made posthumously based on Dugdale's own corrections). [vol II on google books, see p.1024ff.]
Eyton, R. W. (1857), Antiquities
of Shropshire, Vol. 5. [google
Eyton, R. W. (1878), Court, household and itinerary of King Henry II. [archive.org link]
Green, A. (1966), "The Stewardship of the
Liberty of the Eight and a Half of the Hundreds", Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology, Vol.30, Part 3. [Suffolk Institute link]
Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (1999), Domesday
People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents,
1066-1166. Volume I: Domesday Book.
Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (2000), "Additions and Corrections to Sanders’s
Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (2001), Domesday
Descendants: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents,
1066-1166. Volume II: Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum.
Landon, L. (1928), "The Barony of Little Easton and the Family of Hastings", Transactions
of the Essex Archaeological Society. New Series, Vol. 19,
Moriarty, G. A. (1942), "The origin of the Hastings", New
England Historical Genealogical Register,
Moriarty, G. A. (1947),
"Hastings, barons of Little Eston, C. Essex, England", New
England Historical Genealogical Register, Vol.101.
Redstone L. J. (1914), "The Liberty of St. Edmund", Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology, Vol.15, Part 2. [Suffolk Institute link]
Rokewood, J. G. (1840), Chronica
Jocelini de Brakelonda, Camden (Latin edition). [google
books link; example of an English edition online at
Round, J. H. (1902), "Castle Guard", Archaeological
Journal, Vol. 59, 2nd series, Vol. 9. [archive.org
Round, J. H. (1902), "The Origin of the Fitzgeralds I", The
Ancestor, Number 1. [archive.org
Round, J. H. (1902), "The Origin of the Fitzgeralds II", The
Ancestor, Number 2. [archive.org
Round, J. H. (1903), "The Origin of the Carews", The
Ancestor, Number 5. [archive.org
Round, J. H. (1903), "The Manor of
Colne Engaine", Transactions of the Essex
Archaeological Society. New Series, Vol. 8. [archive.org
Round, J. H. (1911), The
King's Serjeants & Officers of State with their Coronation
Sanders, I. J. (1960), English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086-1327.
Wood, H. J. T. (1903), "The Value of Welsh Pedigrees", The
Ancestor, Number 3. [archive.org