| Notes |
- Was William Marmion, founder of the Checkenden line of Marmions, who died before 1221, a son of the Robert Marmion who was himself a son of Milicent of Réthel? On this question hinges a provable descent from the Carolingians to early New England immigrant Thomas Bradbury, at least on this line.
The late John Brooks Threlfall wrote in the first and second editions of his The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury and His Wife Mary Perkins (1988 and 1995):
“That William was a son of Robert Marmion the son of Milicent is evident from a statement made in a lawsuit of about 1267 that William Marmion, lord of Checkenden about 1266 when he died, was great grandson of the Robert Marmion who gave the advowson of Checkenden to Coventry. Since this last William was son of Geoffrey who was son of this William, it follows then that William was a son of Robert.” [The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury by John Brooks Threlfall, 2nd edition, Madison, Wisconsin, 1995]
But in the book’s third edition (2006), Threlfall noted that the evidence is a little more ambiguous:
“That William was a son of Robert Marmion II, son of Milicent is evident from a statement made in a lawsuit of about 1270. In this suit Robert II, who gave the advowson of Checkenden to Coventry, is called ancestor of the grandson of this William. However, there were two Williams then, one a priest and documented as a son of Robert II, the other a knight and the subject hereof who sired the Checkenden line. He too must have been a son of Robert II who had two sons named Robert, one by each of two wives. So, two wives, two Roberts and two Williams! Another possibility was that the knight was a nephew by an otherwise unknown brother and the descent was a collateral one, unlikely.” [The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury by John Brooks Threlfall, 3rd edition, Madison, Wisconsin, 2006]
Nonetheless, a 1997 discussion of the matter on soc.genealogy.medieval leaves us persuaded that the descent is valid. We excerpt pertinent portions below (punctuation and italicization regularized for clarity):Alan B. Wilson, 14 Apr 1997:
John Threlfall in his 1981 TAG article and in his book on the ancestry of Thomas Bradbury reports William Marmion who held Checkenden in 1218 to be the son of Robert II Marmion, son of Milicent, who granted the church at Checkenden to the Priory of Coventry. Since the daughter of Gervase de Rethel and Elisabeth de Namur is of undisputed Carolingian descent, if this linkage were correct Thomas Bradbury would be of Carolingian descent (whether Milicent were the “de Rethel” daughter as Moriarty argued and as I presented above, or an “Elizabeth de Rethel” m. Robert II as in CP and ES).
Neil Thompson in a critical review, “An Alleged Descent from Charlemagne for Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts: A Flawed Attempt,” The Genealogist 9 (Spring, 1988), 80-84, questions the link between William Marmion of Checkenden and Robert Marmion, son of Milicent de Rethel. In April 1994 in a review of Gary Boyd Roberts’s book The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants, TAG 69, 125-126, Thompson criticizes Roberts for including several false descents, one of which was the descent of Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts (which appears on p. 461 of Roberts). In April of 1996 Stuart Baldwin approvingly cited Thompson’s critical remarks about Roberts’s book, including the example of Bradbury, in a post to soc.genealogy.medieval. In April of 1997 Baldwin posted an almost identical comment, again including Thompson’s critical remarks and the example of the false Bradbury descent. (Of course, by the same token, Weis’s Ancestral Roots, which includes this descent, and the questioned linkage, in line 246A, should be comparably discredited. Indeed Weis (Sheppard?) adds a note at the end of the line indicating that he had read Thompson’s critique and considered it adequately answered by Threlfall.)
There are two documents which Threlfall points to which, he argues, warrant the inference that William of Checkenden is a son of Robert II, son of Milicent. Both of these (unfortunately for the likes of me) are in medieval Latin.
The first of these is Boarstall Cartulary No. 8, written Jan. 25, 1339, in which the monks of Coventry, who had been given the church at Checkenden by Robert II, quitclaim the advowson of Checkenden to John Marmion (#4 on the list of Marmions of Checkenden).
“Be it known to all so now as in the future that we, brother Henry prior of the Cathedral church of Coventry, and the convent of the same place, by our unanimous consent, remit and quit claim for ourselves and our successors, to John Marmion, lord of Checkenden, his heirs and assigns, forever, all right and claim that we had or in any way will have had in the advowson of the church of Checkenden, which we had by the gift and conveyance of Robert Marmion a certain ancestor [antecessoris] of the aforesaid John, for atonement and good of the soul of the father of the said Robert, for irreparable damage and enormous injuries, which the same father of the said Robert so extensively and maliciously inflicted on our church and on our predecessors [predecessoribus], to have and to hold the aforesaid advowson, etc. forever. And so that the souls of the ancestors [antecessorum] of the said John should not, God forbid, incur either penalty or peril of annoyance and injury by whatever cause by our predecessors [predecessoribus] and our church and also us, as mentioned before, because of those matters hitherto mentioned, we, completely motivated by a pure and unanimous desire in consideration of charity, insofar as we are able, absolve for the present the souls of the ancestors [antecessorum] of the foresaid John, as well as his own, by our full chapter, from every constraint of guilt by which it can be reasonably believed that they were constrained on the foresaid occasion. In whose...etc. sealing, done in our chapter house at Coventry on the feast of the conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle the year of the lord 1300 thirty eight (i.e., 25 January 1338/9).”
The crux of Neil Thompson’s doubts on the ancestry presented by Threlfall is, Thompson says, that the word “antecessor” “has the double meaning, depending on context, of ‘ancestor’ or ‘predecessor’ [in title] and does not carry with it any specific blood relationship at all.”
Threlfall responds that the monks twice in this deed use the word “predecessoribus” to refer to their own predecessors--the monks who were so abused by Robert I. They three time use the word “antecessorum” to refer to Robert II and/or Robert I’s relation to John, and that it clearly means ancestor.
I would appreciate the opinions of those participants in this forum who have expertise and experience in the interpretation of these medieval Latin documents as to what seems to be the more appropriate interpretation.
I also notice (assuming that the translation presented by Threlfall is reasonably accurate in other respects) that these good monks have not only absolved the souls of John’s “antecessorum” from every constraint of guilt due to the transgressions of Robert I, but they have also absolved John’s own soul from guilt for that act. If John’s only relation to Robert I was as a successor lord of Checkenden due to earlier property transfers, would his soul require absolution for the sins of Robert I?
The other document relevant to the purported linkage between William and Robert II is a record of a lawsuit which occurred about 1270. It is reported in the Great Britain Record Commission, Placitorum in domo capitulari Westmonasteriensi asservatorum abbreviato, London: George Eyre and Andrew Strahan, 1811, p. 182. The text is considerably longer than that in the quitclaim considered above. Moreover it is in a form of Latin script with squiggles which couldn’t possibly be transcribed in ASCII character code.
In this dispute about the advowson of Checkenden church Robert II who had made the grant to the Priory of Coventry is described as “antecessoris” of the underage heir, John Marmion. This raises the same question whether the term denotes an ancestor or may simply describe a succession in position as lord of Checkenden.
While I am not sanguine that a definitive judgement--”proven” or “disproven”--will necessarily result from consideration of these texts in this forum, I was not happy with the discrediting of the Bradbury line by dint of repetition of the claim that it had been disproven without any consideration of the evidence.
Kay Allen, 15 Apr 1997:
This evidence also applies to Bulkeley-Chetwode descendants of the Talbot-Cotton marriage. There is also a case in Wrottesley’s Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls (which I have) which helps in this matter. I will copy it later. As for your Latin goody, make an appointment with Thomas Barnes, PhD, History and Law Departments. Office in Boalt Hall. His Dwinelle Hall Office is closed. I’ll bet he would help. You may mention my name.
Alan B. Wilson, 24 Apr 1997:
I have been fortunate to get Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, Professor of Law and of History at the University of California at Berkeley, to read the record of the 1270 lawsuit as printed in Abbreviato Placitorum, p. 182. He agreed that the inference of descent made by Wrottesley was reasonable given the facts, the chronology, and the names. But he also agreed, as Neil Thompson had said in his critical review of Threlfall’s book, that the word “antecessoris” could mean either predecessor or ancestor. This document would not absolutely prove that Robert II was not a collateral relative of the Checkenden Marmions.
However Professor Barnes thought the line of descent was proven by the monks’ language in 1339 when they quitclaimed the advowson of Checkenden to John Marmion. (Boarstall Carticulary No. 8.)
”...Et ne anime antecessorum dicti Iohannis vel sua penam vel periculum molestiarum et iniuriarum occasione quacunque predecessoribus nostris et ecclesie nostre ac eciam nobis, ut premittitur, hactenus illatarum, quod absit, incurrant, nos mera et unanimi voluntate perfecte compuncti intuitu caritatis animas antecessorum predicti Iohannis ac eciam suam in pleno nostro capitulo ab omni reatus vinculo, quo verisimiliter credi potest ipsas occasione premissa merito constringi, in quantum in nobis est absolvimus per presentes. In cuius [&c. sealing], data in capitulo nostro Coventrie die Lune in festo conversionis sancti Pauli apostoli anno domini MCCC tricesimo octavo.”
“...And so that the souls of the ancestors of the said John should not, God forbid, incur either penalty or peril of annoyance and injury by whatever cause by our predecessors and our church and also us, as mentioned before, because of those matters hitherto mentioned, we, completely motivated by a pure and unanimous desire in consideration of charity, insofar as we are able, absolve for the present the souls of the ancestors of the foresaid John, as well as his own, by our full chapter, from every constraint of guilt by which it can be reasonably believed that they were constrained on the foresaid occasion.”
The absolution of the soul of John, as well of as his ancestors, for the sin committed by Robert I proves a blood line; not just a succession in the position of lord of Checkenden.
This firm opinion expressed by Professor Barnes persuades me that the Marmion line presented by Threlfall (and appearing in Weis, Ancestral Roots, line 246A, and Roberts, Royal Descents, p. 461) is correct.
People have often been accused of clinging to unproven lines as a possibly subconscious desire to cling to royal ancestors. I should point out that I neither gain an ancestor by deciding that the Checkenden Marmions descend from Robert II, nor would I lose an ancestor if they were not. I have lines of descent from both the Marmions of Scrivelsby and Tamworth as well as the Marmions of Checkenden (through Thomas Bradbury). It is worth noting that this is in essence the same answer given to Neil Thompson’s criticisms by Walter Lee Sheppard in his endnote to line 246 in AR8 (2004). Noting Threfall’s response, Sheppard points out Threlfall’s “abbreviated translation of the deed granted by ‘bro. Henry, prior of the Cathedral Church of Coventry’ of the advowson of the church of Checkenden to John Marmion, lord of Checkenden, citing the gift of said advowson to the Cathedral Church by Robert Marmion ‘for the atonement and good of the soul of the father of the said Robert’ and now returned to John Marmion ‘by a pure and unanimous desire... (to) absolve... the souls of the ancestors of the aforesaid John as well as his own’.” Sheppard concludes: “It would appear that this answers the question raised by the reviewer and endorses the lineage as presented.” The deed makes it clear that Robert I must have been a direct ancestor of John Marmion of Checkenden who d. 1330 or 1331, otherwise there would have been no need to absolve John of Robert’s sins. One wonders if Sheppard read the 1997 discussion in soc.genealogy.medieval.
|
Nielsen Hayden genealogy
1160 - Bef 1221 (< 65 years)
[1, 2, 3] 