Subj : Re: C.P. Addition: Isabel de Gressenhall, wife of William de
To : All
From :
[email protected]
Date : Tue Sep 04 2018 11:59 pm
From:
[email protected]
Dear Andrew ~
You've correctly analyzed the problem with the various lineages which have =
been set forth for Isabel de Gressenhall. Myself I believe I originally re=
lied on Brown, whose work I consulted many years ago.
I just checked Rye, Norfolk Families 1 (1911): 386=E2=80=93387, which work =
I also consulted many years ago. I see he identifies Isabel, wife of Will=
iam de Huntingfield, as the "d[aughter] of Henry de Gressenhall." So we ha=
ve yet another proposed parentage for Isabel de Gressenhall.
Here is the evidence Rye cites to document Isabel's parentage: Nothing.
Rye may be consulted at the following weblink:
https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid
IE4043048
Having reviewed the evidence anew this week, I don't think it is as cut as =
dried as citing Brown, Farrer, Keats-Rohan, Rye, or Blomefield, as good as =
all of them are. All five of them were working from a lack of evidence whi=
ch invariably create problems for us historians. As I've noted, there is a=
n obvious chronological problem with the Keats-Rohan version.
Is there any available record which might indicate Isabel de Gressenhall's =
immediate ancestry? Actually yes there is.
In 1195 the Abbot of St. Edmunds granted William de Huntingfield and Isabel=
his wife and her heirs the whole vill of Wendling, Norfolk in return for a=
rent of 50s. a year.
References:
1. Placitorum in Domo Capitulari Westmonasteriensi Asservatorum Abbrevatio =
(1811): 3, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id
umn.31951002064556u;view
1up;seq=
31
2. Blomefield, Essay towards a Topog. Hist. of Norfolk 10 (1807): 87=E2=80=
=9391 quotes the actual fine involved in this transaction:
"In the sixth year of Richard I. a fine was levied on the day after St. Alp=
hege's, before Hubert Walter Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Nigel Bishop=
of London, Gilbert Glanvile Bishop of Rochester, Herbert, son of Hervey, W=
illiam de Warren, Richard de Wiat, and Thomas de Husseburn, the King's just=
ices, between William de Huntingfeld and Isabel his wife, and the abbot of =
Bury, whereby Will. and Isabella quitclaimed all their right in this town, =
and advowson of the church, to the abbot, on which the abbot conveyed to hi=
m and his wife, and their heirs, the whole township of Wendling, to be held=
of the said abbot and his successours, by the service and payment of 60s r=
ent per ann. and they were to hold the men and tenants of the town, by the =
same services and customs which they performed to the abbot's predecessors,=
before William, son of Roger de Gressinghale, held the same." END OF QUOT=
E.
Blomefield cites the following source for the above fine: Regist. Bury, Pin=
cebek, fol. 186. The fine states the rent involved with the transaction wa=
s 60s. but I have seen it stated elsewhere (perhaps by Brown) that the rent=
was 50s.
Although Wendling is located in Norfolk, for some reason, the above fine is=
not included in Rye, Short Calendar of Feet of Fines for Norfolk 1 (1885).
Be that as it may, the fine implies that "William, son of Roger de Gressing=
hale" was the predecessor to Isabel de Gressenhall. I assume it is for thi=
s reason that Blomefield states in his Wendling account that Isabel de Gres=
senhall was the "daughter and sole heir of William de Gressinghale, lord of=
Gressinghale."
It may be that Blomefield jumped to a faulty conclusion. The best interpre=
tation one can make of the fine and other evidence is that Isabel was the d=
escendant and heiress of William son of Roger de Gressenhall. She was not =
necessarily his daughter. I can live with that interpretation.
While the fine isn't as exact as one would like, it is still a helpful reco=
rd in identifying Isabel de Gressenhall's forebearer.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
* Origin: News Gate @ Net396 -Huntsville, AL - USA (1:396/4)