Her lineage is provided in Medieval Lands[1] and she is stated to be the daughter of William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and Isabelle de Vermandois, widow of Robert de Beaumont, Comte de Meulan, Earl of Leicester, and was the daughter of daughter of Hugues de France, Comte de Vermandois et de Valois (Capet dynasty) and his wife Adelais, Countess de Vermandois (Carolingian dynasty). Her date of birth is not provided in source but her parents married shortly after 1117 (death of Robert de Beaumont, Comte de Meulan, Earl of Leicester)[2].
Firstly to Roger de Beaumont, Earl of Warwick. There is little on record regarding the date of this marriage but it is assumed that she was young at the marriage. Their first child, William, is thought to have been born c. 1139 and thus the marriage is assumed to be c. 1137. Robert de Beaumont died in 1153 and Gundred remarried.
Secondly, stated to be between June 1153 and 1156, to William de Lancaster, as his second wife. Note that there is some dispute regarding whether she, or a daughter, married William de Lancaster. Wikitree has adopted the position taken on MedLands and bases this on a Charter from Henry II which records that “primus Willielmum de Lancaster, baronem de Kendale, qui prius vocabatur de Tailboys” married “Gundredam comitissam Warwic” and that she was the mother of his son William.
Death
Her date of death is unknown. Richardson states she was living in 1166.[4]
Beaumonts in History; Edward Beaumont; Chapter 3, page 37. Note pdf download.
Is Gundreda your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or contact
the profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Hi Isaac, Since her mother's first husband, Robert de Meulan, died in 1118, her mother had to have married her 2nd husband, William de Warenne, after that. Thus the estimated birth year of 1120 for Gundred. Gundred is stated to have married before 1130 to Roger Beaumont. I have no information on any of the children other than Waleran, named as the 2nd son and born before 1153. All of this data is as shown in Douglas Richardson's Royal Ancestry publ. in 2013.
De Warenne-253 and Warenne-17 appear to represent the same person because: This is definitely the same person. Please do NOT reject the match. You just need to resolve the date of birth, which according to my sources is circa 1124. Same mother & father, same husband. A rejected match means they do NOT represent the same people. If you don't want to resolve the dates right now, then leave it a week or two while you look into it. Otherwise you can make it an unmerged match.
Thanks, Darlene - Co-Leader, European Aristocrats Project
If born 1124, she's born after her eldest presently-connected daughter. It's eight (8) years later, respectfully, and we've still got at least one impossible claim here published due to the unresolved merge cleanup from 2104? Is our project best practice to preserve the impossibility to aid research, or delete the seemingly-impossible datum while preserving the possibly-false connections?
The daughter's DOB was obviously in error. I've changed it. I'm not researching this line; I looked at Royal Ancestry and provided the bit of relevant information in my reply above.
The problem(s) with deleting the connected daughters birthdate is:
it might not be wrong
it could be the placement (connection) of the daughter to this family group that is wrong
they are separated in time in ways incompatible with biology ie reproductive ages
Andrew Lancaster comments on the daughter profile that there is a different set of parents to be considered, Roger the Poitevin and Almodis de la Marche
Notably Roger the Poitevin (ie Montgomery) had lands in Lancashire which could in theory affiliate a daughter (natural or legitimate) with Lancaster in place not family name. As you know surname changes by place happened in this era, sometimes retroactively. Roger the Poitevin is himself an example as he was nicknamed not for his lands but his bride-heirs even before she inherited.
Notably Roger the Poitevin decamps from his wife and sons county in France a few years after taking control of that county, ie before he dies. If he returned to England circa 1120 then he may have fathered this daughter there (or may have brought a bastard from Poitou which he otherwise inexplicably abandons?) and at the right time the daughter's birthdate on connected profile says. But, we just deleted it. Because it was the wrong year (wrong generation) for the presently connected parents. If we assume deductively the daughter's birth year MUST be false based solely on the connected mother birth year, that risks creating a synthetic placement without evidence and then deleting the contradiction that disproves the placement.
what if it is the connection that is wrong?
Do we have any primary sources supporting the present connection?
Could you discuss with Andrew? That was 2014-16 comments so perhaps the primary source evidencing the correct relationships and dates has been identified since.
The daughter's bio gave a later DOB than the one in the birthdate field, so all I did was change it to coincide with that. As to the bulk of your other comments, I see that you have replied to an old post of Andrew's on the daughter's profile. I'll leave it to him to respond. IAlternatively, you could post on G2G from the daughter's profile and tag it with medieval, pre-1500, and England to bring it to the attention of project members. I'm currently battling Covid. . .
How ought we place Avice "de Lancaster" -- what does the primary source evidence say?
Thanks, Darlene - Co-Leader, European Aristocrats Project
Thanks in advance for your reply, Darlene.
Could you discuss with Andrew? That was 2014-16 comments so perhaps the primary source evidencing the correct relationships and dates has been identified since.
Hope that's helpful. Hope you're well!
edited by Isaac Taylor