Trying to help clean up a messy Ferrers line ... any thoughts?

Question

Walcheline/Walkelin #1 (Ferrières-3):

The questionable thing is daughter Gundred (Ferrers-123), who marries Robert de Blount. There's not much known about this man at the top of the line. A number of books have her as the daughter of Henri (Ferrières-4) and specifically his youngest. Most books just say she's the "daughter of Earl Ferrers", which this top Walkelin wasn't. The Peerage only gives an "email" as a source, for being the daughter of this Walkelin. Since dates are an estimate, and her son isn't estimated to be born until the late 70s, dates don't force her to belong to this generation. 

Walcheline/Walkelin #2 (Ferrers-177):

Father, Henri (Ferrières-4), does not mention a son Walkelin. 

"In the name of the sacred and undivided Trinity, I, Henry de Ferrers (Henricus de Ferrariis), have founded a church in honour of holy Mary, the mother of God, near to my castle, of Tutbury, for the soul of king William and queen Matilda, and for the health of my father and my mother, and my wife Berta, and my sons Eugenulph, William, and Robert, and my daughters, and all my ancestors and friends." (Found. Chart. Regist. Tutbury.)

And, there doesn't seem to be any sources for this Walkelin (Ferrers-177). As for Henri's other sons, Guillaume and William should likely be merged, and although FMG conflates William and Engenulph, Henri's own words indicate they are two different sons. As for Henri's daughters, there are online trees with Emmeline (Ferrers-183), but I'm not sure about any solid sources; books do have a Gundred (Ferrers-184) marrying Ralph de Foleschamp, but they also have her marrying de Blount (as above), so is there one Gundred marrying twice or two Gundreds; Amicia seems to check out. 

Walcheline/Walkelin #3 (Ferrers-429): 

According to various sources, Walkelin is the son of Henry (Ferrers-432), son of William (Ferrers-433), son of Henri (Ferrières-4), son of Walkelin (Ferrières-3). Yet, some others make him directly the son of William, and others make his daughter, Isabel (Ferrers-191), the daughter of yet another Walkelin (Ferrers-400). 

Walcheline/Walkelin #4 (Ferrers-400):

The Battle Abbey Roll, with some account of Norman lineages, has him as the son of Robert, of the Battle of the Standard, but then seems to give him a daughter Isabel (Ferrers-410) as an heir, just as Walkelin #3. 

The other daughters, Ermintrude (Ferrers-409), who is supposed to marry a Talbot, and Margery (Ferrers-408), who is supposed to marry a Chandos, are sometimes given as granddaughters, or even great-granddaughters in some books, through one or two generations of Robert FitzWalkelins, in between. Now, there are FitzWalkelins going back to the Domesday Book, so I'm not quite sure how they attach to the Ferrers, or if they even should. Numerous sources seem to use qualifiers, such as "likely", to attach them. 

Robert FitzWalkelin (Ferrers-297): 

Various sources tell of an Ermintrude Talbot (Unknown-219323), widow of William Grendon (De_Grendon-2), who has a daughter Margaret (De_Grendon-1). Margaret is said to marry a Robert FitzWalkelin, and they are gifted property in and around Eggington by her mother. They are then said to have daughters Margaret/Margery, who marries a Chandos, and Ermintrude (Fitzwalkelyn-1), who marries a William de Stafford (Stafford-224).

We have a Robert, son of "William", rather than a "Walkelin", with a daughter Margery (Ferrers-284) who marries a Chandos. His wife is Joan (Bocland-1), but Margery's mother is Margaret (De_Grendon-1), and Margaret is married to a Robert FitzRobert. 

A Robert FitzWalkelin holds Banbury, Cropredy, and Wykham, for Wulfwig, bishop of Dorchester, in Oxfordshire, in the Domesday Book. 

Comments

I'll be surprised if the Blounts go back that far.

Several families claim descent from the "Conqueror's admiral".  It was a good excuse for not being mentioned in Wace or the Battle Abbey Roll, back in the days when people looked at such things for evidence of Norman ancestry.  You could admit that your ancestor wasn't actually at the Battle of Hastings, but still say he came over with the Conqueror.

---

And, there's another Engenulf Ferrers (Ferrers-407) floater, with a son Henry.

Answer 1

There are quite a few problems with this family and with the sources, which is why I think we need to move very slowly on some of these issues.

For instance the English translation of the founding charter of Tutbury priory isn't quite correct, particularly in naming the sons, the original latin is filiorum meorum Eugenulphi, W. Roberti, and that's why there is confusion over whether the W. is intended to mean another son William or perhaps Eugenulph is also known by the name William? (I'm not sure what other original documents confirm the existence of William?)

Also my Latin isn't that good, but I don't think the translation should be the 'health of my father and my mother' (which would imply they were still alive), but 'the salvation of the soul of my father and my mother'

The original can be seen here on page 391 or 4 of 13.

Perhaps because of the confusion over William, Keats-Rohan, thinks that Eugenulph may have inherited the Norman Lands of Henry I de Ferrers, and he is probably the father of another Henry, who is the father of Walchelin (Ferrers-429).

I think many of the daughters need to be investigated to see if they are related to the family at all, or even if they actually existed.  RJ is right, I can't find any mention of the Blount family this early. 

Comments

I meant to mention that Keats-Rohan in her Domesday People, page 387 has Robert Filius Walchelini, who was a Domesday tenant of Odo of Bayeux in Oxfordshire.  There doesn't seem to be any connection to the Ferrers family or any mention of other family members.

Walchelin doesn't seem to be a common name amongst the Normans, but there are other examples, so they aren't necessarily all related to the Ferrers.

---

Yes, I can't find a solid connection. 

Going by the first court roll discussed here, the female heirs' ancestry is Robert, Robert, William, Walkelin. 

Going by the second court roll mentioned, the descent goes from Walkelin immediately has 2 generations of Roberts. 

And ... "Although there seems to be no proof that Walchelin was related to the Ferrers family, there is very strong onomastic evidence for a Ferrers connection." ... the family connection people are making seems to be name based. But, as you say, there were other Walkelins, including Walkelin Maminot, an early marriage attached to the Ferrers. 

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-03/1046919089

---

Going by this, there appears to be 2 generations of Roberts, immediately down from a Walkelin, as well. The second Robert being a knight in 1166 wouldn't be our Robert born c. 1177, father of the female heirs. That would make for 3 generations of Roberts, between Walkelin and the female heirs. 

Folio 21. De Henovere.

Ego Robertus Abbas Burtoniæ concedo etc. donationem quam predecessor meus Gaufridus bonæ memoriæ etc. concesserunt Roberto filio Wachelini (fn. 7)

Which seems to Google translate to something like: I, Robert abbot of Burton, I grant the gift of Geoffrey of a good to the remembrance of which my predecessor, agreed to Robert son of Wachelin (fn. 7)

7. A Robert fitz Walchelin was one of the knightly tenants of the Eari of Ferrars A.D. 1166. (Liber Niger Scaccarii.) A deed on p. 40 shows he was son of this Robert, the name fitz Walkeline having been assumed as a patronymic at this date.

Again, nothing more than a tenant connection.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/staffs-hist-collection/vol5/pt1/pp34-47

---

Going with the idea of a family connection, the notes on Wace state that the top Walkelin left two sons, a Henri and a William. If Henri kept the Ferrers name, I wonder as to the possibility of William and his descendants taking on the fitz Walkelin name. 

"Vauquelin de Ferrieres left two sons, William and Henry, who distinguished themselves at the conquest, and were liberally rewarded. We shall find the name hereafter."

http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/library/wace/master_wace.html#_note-9

 

---

There does seem to be other primary documentation of William, in France, and Crusade accounts. 

https://archive.org/stream/rutlandmagazine00socigoog#page/n225/mode/2up

---

Thanks Jason, I'd like to have a look at the original works about William that he refers to, because I think the author is making quite a few assumptions.  I don't have time at the moment, maybe in a day or two.

Answer 2

Found something that seems to lay out the Fitz Walkelin line, and identifies the Walchelin: 

Between 1089-1139 Walchelin de Raborna attested a charter of Robert f. Henry de Ferrars. (C. Tut. liii).

From an entry in the Leics. Survey (1124-1129) which informs us that Robert de Ferrars then held 2 carucates in Donisthorpe " which Walchelin holds," it would appear that Walchelin must have died at some date posterior to 1124. (V.C.H. Leic. I. 351).

In 1141 Robert junior, earl of Nottingham, granted to Tutbury the whole tithe of the new burgh of Nottingham, the grant being made chiefly for the extinction of the silver marc which Robert f. Walchelin de Roburna was wont to give annually from Egginton. (Ib. xxxviii; C.D.F. 5B2).

Between 1150-1159 Robert, abbot of Burton, granted to Robert f. Walchelin the land in Over which abbot Geoffrey had granted to him in fee. (C. Bur. 37). 

About 1160 abbot Bernard confirmed to Robert f. Robert f. Walchelin the land in (Rough) Heanor which his predecessor had granted him. (Ib. 40). 

In 1166 Robert f. Walchelin is mentioned in the charter of earl William as having held 2 fees of the old enfeoffment. (R.B.E. 336). 

Robert f. Walchelin II succeeded his father before 1166. (R.B.E. 336). 

 In 1207 he was amerced for some offence (R. PiP. Y. 8 Jno) and his name appears as a witness to several charters of the earl Ferrars . (F.H.D.I. 289; IV. 138; G.C.M. 2,3; 385, 1113, 2621; S. Coli. VII. N.S. 132, 133; See also D.M. II. 50b; C. Ryd. 266; J. 215, 239). 

In 1232 it was proved that Robert f. Robert f. Walchelin had held 1/2 the vill of Egginton in socage of Alexander Hauselin, and 1/4 of the same vill by service, in right of his wife, the sole heiress of William de Grendon. (B. no. 752).

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/052/DAJ_v052_1931_027-056.pdf

 

Comments

John Burke makes Walchelin of Radbourne a son of Henri de Ferrers (Ferrières-4), so there is an earlier source to a Walkelin (Ferrers-177) son of Henri. But, still no mention from Henri of a son named Walkelin.

Sir Bernard Burke calls him Walachine de Ferrers and seems to conflate him with Walkelin (Ferrers-400), son of Robert (he says William) and Margaret Peverel. This would seem impossible, if Walkelin doesn't die until the Siege of Acre, and Robert fitz Walchelin has inherited by 1141.

---

Neither of the Burke's are considered reliable for this period, so I think any relationship between these people they mention definitely needs to be checked against other sources.

As you say, we have to take Henry's own statement about the names of this sons as the most reliable information we have.  Even if a son named Walchelin had died before the foundation charter of Tutbury, you could expect that he would be mentioned in the charter.

---

Keats-Rohan does have

Walchelin de Raborna, Ferrers tenant at Roburne, c. 1139, father of Robert c.1166 (page 653)

Robert filius Walchelini de Roburna, held 2 fees of de Ferrers at Rodburn in 1135, and also mentions the document where he was freed from rent payment in Egginton.  His son Robert had succeeded him by 1166 (page 967)

There is also Willelm filius Walchelini on the same page who held Ferrers fees in 1135 which were held in 1166 by the heir of Geoffrey Marmion, but she doesn't make any connection between the 2 previous.

Although the names Walchelin and Robert suggest a connection with the Ferrers family, it may have been a more distant relationship?  The fact that they only held 2 fees may also be an indication of a distant or no familial connection at all?

---

Yes, the family connections trying to link the fitz Walkelin line to the Ferrers, that I've seen so far, don't seem to work. 

The Archaeology Data Service has another document dealing with the divisions of Egginton, through the Grendons and the FitzWalkelins, that supports the first. 

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/075/DAJ_v075_1955_036-061.pdf

I still have a feeling that there's a generation missing, though. Robert I is dying about 1160. Robert II is dying about 1232. That's a 72 year difference. If Robert II was of age around 1160, that would have him living into his 90s, and having his daughters in his 70s, if they're born around the turn of that century. 

---

I thought it was odd when you said the name was already hereditary.  It would be a very early date for a name of that type - ie for a Robert fitz Walkelin not to be actually the son of Walkelin.

An extra generation removes that difficulty.  But of course he could be Walkelin fitz Robert, or he could be Robert's nephew, Walkelin fitz Fulk.

This is why they call it prosopography not genealogy.

---

That was from the link. Staffordshire Historical Collections, Vol. 5 Part 1, by George Wrottesley.

Yes, there could be anything in the gap.

---

The Grendons initially got their share of Egginton from a family using fitz surnames. The Walkelin/Robert combo could just be part of that family, and the Grendons ended up marrying back in, bringing the property together again.

Answer 3

Jason, I may not solve your priority issues but I will chime in with my observations, even if I'm exposing my limited talents. I'm surprised more people haven't provided input such as profile managers.

The period I looked at is the ancester tree of William Ferrers-2 , 5th Earl of Derby up to his Wikitree posted 2GGF Robert Ferrers-8 with a birth of 1062.

it is Robert Ferrers--8 father of ;
Robert Ferrers-145 m Peverel-6;
William Ferrers-11 m Braose-45;
William Ferrers-93 m Meschines-40
William Ferrers-2  b1193

The grandparents Gernon38, and Montfort-45  were as I anticipated. Some of the narrative, names titles etc, I would put a questionmark on.

 

Father of Ferrers-8 would be a Henry, and I believe Ferrers-8 could have had a brother Walkelin Ferrers-177 who was an ancestor of several Roberts, who would have been cousins of the Robert and William line listed above

 

I do agree with some of the above commentary that mergers are needed, there are extra children, probably not justified , contributed from random downloads.

What do the other viewers have to say?

Comments

John Burke seemed to give Henri a son Walkelin, brother of Robert Ferrers-8, but I can't find anything to support that. Then his son, Bernard Burke, turns it into a totally different Walkelin, that doesn't seem to work, either.

Robert could have had a sister, or daughter depending on accounts, who married into a Maminot family, also using the Walkelin name, though.

---

Good discussion here

Jim Webber took the somewhat cloudy imprecise secondary source evidence and explained very forthrightly that he was going to add another generation [http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I32143 "Robert"] to the pedigree. So at least he links the roberts together as a line.

Does not have reservations about Henri having a son Robert, but the comments about Walklin put him in category of maybe, could be.

there is a detailed soc.gen.medieval discussion note attached to the [http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I29715 Walkelin/FitzWalkelin line]

 

citations from Bevan note address,

1. a case in the 1233 curia regis roll [Avrom Saltman, The Cartulary of Tutbury Priory, (Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1962) no.71].) It appears that William Talbot's interest lay in the land held in socage but it is not stated how.
2. Judgement went in his favour [CRR, v.XV no.133]
3. [The Cartulary of Tutbury Priory, no.103]

Answer 4

Sources are here

http://www.coelweb.co.uk/coeldatabase.html

4000 documents.  Can't see a price anywhere.  Can't be cheap.  Not clear whether you can even run it on a modern PC.

The books are based on the database.

Obviously the modern writers have access to the old books.  But they usually find the old books got it wrong.

 

Comments

Hehe, for the low sum of only £517 + tax.

---

The COEL disc will indeed only run on an older operating system. I think if you contact Keats-Rohan it is not as expensive as you say though. I have a copy that I think will still run on the old laptop it is in. I used it for Hastings webpages. Many of the sources are named in the 2 Domesday books of Keats-Rohan though, which many of us either have or have acces to. Are there exact questions?

Answer 5

Henri (Ferrières-4)

1081: "1375 Charter of William I."; "Henricus de Ferrariis" (Ferrières-4)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp481-505

---

How many sons did he have?

Everyone seems to agree there was a Robert.

Orderic Vitalis, a contemporary historian, does mention a William de Ferrers a number of times, including at the siege of Courci (1091), https://archive.org/stream/ecclesiasticalhi02orde#page/508/mode/2up, and the siege of Nicaea (1097), https://archive.org/stream/ecclesiasticalhi03orde#page/98/mode/2up. It does appear a William also witnessed a charter of Robert Curthose (1101-1105), https://archive.org/stream/cu31924028043663#page/n215/mode/2up. The history of Oakham is said to have passed down through William, and was still held by his descendant, Walkelin Ferrers-429, in the 1170s, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/rutland/vol2/pp5-27. 

On the other hand, the history of Duffield is said to have passed down through Engenulf, http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-1602-1/dissemination/pdf/thejesso1-205394_1.pdf. But, by the 1170s, it is held by William, descendant of Robert, who received the property. Any separate Duffield line, down from Engenulf seems to have died off rather quickly, while William's and Robert's lines are still going. 

If Henri's "W." is Engenulf, himself, then the property should have followed, and Duffield should have stayed with that line, along with Oakham and lands in Normandy. But, Oakham and the lands in Normandy took a different route of ownership than either of those two options, ending up with Isabel and husband Roger de Mortimer. 

"The total number of counties is uncertain because it is unclear whether the entry concerning the lands of Henry de Ferrières refers to Lechlade and Longborough in Gloucestershire, or to Oakham in Rutland, or indeed to all three places."

"The valuations for Great Delce and River may have been taken at the same time as other properties held by the same tenants were valued (ibid., i, 5, 9), and those concerning Ashby-de-la-Zouche and the lands late of Henry de Ferrières may have been associated with fines to recover those properties made in the summer and autumn of 1204 (ROF, 209, 221)."

http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/16623/1/Loss_of_Normandy_postprint.pdf

---

It seems like 3, to me ... Robert, William, and Engenulf. Although, Henri was said to have a brother, William, as well. Could the Oakham and Normandy line descend from him? 

---

 

Answer 6

ROBERT'S LINE (Derby and Nottingham)

---

Robert I (Ferrers-8), son of Henri

1135-39: 580. "Charter of Robert de Ferrariis" (Ferrers-8)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp190-217

c. 1140: "806. [Notification that] Robert earl Ferreres" (Ferrers-8)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp281-308

---

Robert II (Ferrers-145), son of Robert, son of Henri, nephew of Engenulf

1140–1150: 581. "Charter of Robert the younger" (Ferrers-145); "his grandfather Henry" (Ferrières-4); "his father's brother Engenulf" (Ferrers-180); "his father Robert" (Ferrers-8)

1141: 582. "Charter of Robert the younger" (Ferrers-145); tenant "Robert son of Walchelin de Raborna"; "Hatwis the earl's mother" (Vitré-14)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp190-217

---

The question might be as to why no mention of an uncle William. But, he may only be mentioning Engenulf because they inherited property from him, and he was involved in the same priory.

---

William (Here is where things get more confusing)

1158–9: 583. "Charter of William de Ferrariis"; witnesses include "Willelmo filio Anserede et Walkelino fratre ipsius" (William son of Anserede and Walkelin his brother)

1158–9: 584. "Charter of William earl Ferrars"; "He ratifies the gift by William de Ferrariis" "his kinsman"; "R[oberto] de Ferrariis fratre comitis" a brother of the count; "R[oberto] de Ferrariis patruo ejus" (that would be "his uncle", but an uncle and father both named Robert doesn't makes much sense ... naming two living children the same thing isn't unheard of, but is pretty rare): "Thoma de Ferrariis" of unknown relation; witness "R[oberto] filio Walkelini" Robert son of Walkelin

c. 1160: "585. Charter of William earl Ferrars"; "Roberto de Ferrariis fratre comitis" brother of the count; "Roberto et Henrico de Ferrariis ejus patruis" ("his uncles" but a father and uncle both named Robert doesn't make much sense); witness "Henrico Walchilini filio" Henry son of Walkelin

c. 1170: "586. Charter of William earl Ferrars"; witnesses "Roberto filio Walchelini, Henrico filio Walchelini, et Petro filio Walchelini" Robert, Henry, and Peter, as sons of Walkelin

c. 1200: 589. "Charter of William de Ferrariis, earl of Derby"

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp190-217

---

The sons of Walkelin, fitz Walkelins, are tenants of Robert I's line, but there's no mention of them being related. 

Charters 584 and 585 cause problems. Our William (Ferrers-11) is the son of Robert, meaning he shouldn't also have an uncle Robert. 

Option A: If they are dated correctly, and represent Ferrers-11, then there would need to be another generation, between Robert Ferrers-145 and William Ferrers-11, who is not named Robert, but has brothers named Robert and Henry. Ferrers-11 would be his son and we would need another son named Robert, brother of Ferrers-11. 

Option B: Instead of a generation between Robert II and the William in the charters, what if the William in the charters was the son of Robert II's dead older brother, William? That would make Robert his uncle. Could he have been running things until William came of age?

Option C: The original charters were undated and have been attributed to the wrong generation. (see below)

---

William I? (Ferrers-11), son of Robert II (or someone else?)

Undated: "Willelmus Comes de ferrariis." (Ferrers-11); "Domina Sibilla Comitissa." (Braose-15); "Roberto de ferrariis fratre Comitis.", brother of count; "Willelmo filio Comitis." (Ferrers-93), son of count; "et Henrico. et Roberto (Ferrers-297) fratribus suis." that William's brothers (sons of the count)

https://www.le.ac.uk/lahs/downloads/SwiftVolume20.pdf

William II? (Ferrers-93), son of William, son of Sybil, stepson of Adam, and nephew of William and Matilda de Braose. 

1212: "That it may be known to you all why and for what William Braose (Braose-170)," ... "; and then there came to us at Gloucester, Matilda of Hay his wife (St._Valery-11), and William Earl of Ferrers (Ferrers-93), his nephew, and Adam de Porter (Port-45), who had married his sister (Braose-15),"

http://douglyn.co.uk/BraoseWeb/note14.1.htm

---

Those seem to match what we have for Ferrers-11, for the most part (wife, a couple sons, wife's brother, wife's second husband, wife's brother's wife) and Ferrers-93. What we don't have, is a brother, Robert, for Ferrers-11, nor a son, Henry. And, as above, missing some uncles, if those charters are also Ferrers-11. 

If that undated charter was followed, and Ferrers-11 was given a son, Henry, then his grandson Ferrers-2 would have uncles Robert and Henry, as well as a brother named Robert, and the naming would match for charters 584 and 585. Could those charters be attributed to the wrong William? There was also a new bishop of Lincoln, named Robert, at the time of William Ferrers-2. I haven't investigated the other witnesses yet, to see if alternate dating fits with them.

---

 

Comments

Henry I (c. 1100), wife Berta, son Engenulf, son Robert (does the W go with E or R, or its own person?)

Monasticon Anglicanum

Coventry Monastery

NUM VI (Willielmi I): Henrico de Ferrariis

Tutbury Priory

NUM I: Henricus de Ferariis, exoris meae Bertae (wife), filiorum meorum (sons) Eugenulphi, W. Roberti, filiarum mearum (daughters)

Robert I (c. 1139), father Henry

Monasticon Anglicanum

Burton upon Trent Monastery

NUM VI (Henrici I): R de Ferrariis

Tutbury Priory

NUM VI: R. comes de Ferrariis

NUM XI: Robertus comes de Ferrariis, Henrici patris mei (father)

Abbey of Merebal

NUM II (Henricus rex): Robertus de Ferrariis

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Pierre-Sur-Dive

580 (1135-1139): Robert de Ferrariis

Robert II (c. 1158), father Robert, grandfather Henry, grandmother Berta, uncle Engenulf, mother Hawice

Monasticon Anglicanum

Tutbury Priory

NUM II: Robertus comes junior de Ferrariis, avus meus Henricus (grandfather), Berta uxore sua (his wife - Henry's), Egennlfus patruus meus (uncle), Robertus pater meus (father)

NUM VII: Robertus junior, comes de Notingham

Abbey of Buildewas

NUM I (Stephanus rex, 1135-1154): Robert de Ferrariis

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Pierre-Sur-Dive

581 (1140-1150): Robert the younger earl of Nottingham, grandfather Henry, uncle Engenulf, father Robert

582 (1141): Robert the younger earl of Nottingham, mother Hatwis

Abbey of Savigny

806 (c. 1140): Robert earl Ferreres

824 (1157): Robert earl de Ferreriis

William II (c. 1191), wife Sybil, father Robert, grandfather Robert, great-grandfather Henry, brother Robert

Monasticon Anglicanum

Tutbury Priory

NUM IV: Willielmus comes de Ferrariis, Henrici de Ferrariis proavi mei (great-grandfather), Eugenulphi de Ferrariis, Roberti avi mei (grandfather), Roberti patris mei (father), uxoris meæ Sibillæy (wife)

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Pierre-Sur-Dive

583 (1158-1159): William de Ferrariis

584 (1158-1159): William earl Ferrars, William de Ferrariis his kinsman, R de Ferrariis fratre comitis (brother), R de Ferrariis proavo ejus (grandfather), Thoma de Ferrariis (relation not mentioned)

586 (c. 1170): William earl Ferrars

Cathederal Church of St Mary, Bayeux

1446 (1177): Willelmus de Ferrariis

National Archives (CRU/923): Gift by William de Ferariis, witness Roberto de Ferariis fratre meo (brother)

William III (c. 1247), father William, wife Agnes Meschines, brother Thomas, grandmother Margaret Peverel, mother Sybil de Broase, stepfather Adam de Port

Monasticon Anglicanum

Tutbury Priory

NUM V: Willielmus comes de Ferrariis, filius (son of) Willielmi comitis de Ferrariis 

NUM VIII: Willielmus comes de Ferrariis, filius (son of) Willielmi comitis de Ferrariis 

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Pierre-Sur-Dive

589 (c. 1200): William de Ferrariis, earl of Derby, Agnes his wife, Thoma fratre meo (brother)

Priory of St Stephen, Plessis-Grimould

566 (25 Sep 1203): W comite de Ferrariis

Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 1231-39

wife Agnes is sister of Chester

Fine R. 1 John, m. 23; Hardy, Rot. de Oblat. et Fin. p. 3; Pipe R. 1 John, m. 2d

grandmother Margaret is sister of Peverel

from Rymer, f. 143, A.D. 1212, 14 John

nephew of William de Broase, whose sister married Adam de Port

---

Most of the documents I'm finding line up with what we've got, for the Derby line, for the most part. Unless the documents mentioning a brother, Robert, for William I, should actually be attributed to William II, then we should add a brother, Robert, for William I, rather than a brother Walkelin. (That Walkelin, who marries a Goda, has been conflated with brother William who died at Acre, and possibly Walkelin fitz Gerard of Derby, who married a Goda. I haven't found any evidence of a brother Walkelin, nor a marriage to a Toeni.)

Contradictory documents:

Monasticon Anglicanum

Abbey of Dore

NUM I: Robertus* comes de Ferrariis, "Sibillae de Braosa, exoris meae (wife), matris W. filii mei (mother of my son William), et sua, et pro salute Bertae (fuit filia Milonis comitis Herfordiae) matris uxoris meae (mother of my wife)" 

*FMG states [mistake for Willielmus], which then makes it compatible with everything else.

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Pierre-Sur-Dive

585 (c. 1160): William earl Ferrars, Roberto de Ferrariis fratre comitis (brother), Robert et Henrico de Ferrariis ejus patruis (uncles)

I looked at the possibility of this being dated incorrectly, but the witnesses seem to suggest the date is about right. I also tried inserting an extra generation, to make it compatible, but that just caused more contradictions with other sources. I haven't found an original online, to double check what it says. 

Answer 7

WILLIAM'S LINE (Oakham/Rutland and Normandy)

---

William (Ferrers-433), son of Henri

1101-1105: "451. Charter of Robert duke of the Normans..."; "Willelmi de Ferreriis" (Ferrers-433)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp141-163

---

Hugh (Ferrers-435), son of William

1124-1125: "629. Charter of Henry I. as king of England and duke of Normandy, addressed generally."; "Hugh de Ferraria" (Ferrers-435)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp218-248

---

Henry (Ferrers-432), son of William

8 Dec 1142: "370. Charter of Gualeran count of Meulan."; "Henricus de Ferrariis" (Ferrers-432)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp120-140

1150-1: "109. Charter of Henry, duke of Normandy (sic) addressed to Hugh archbishop of Rouen and his lieges of Normandy."; "Henricus de Ferr[ariis]" (Ferrers-432)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp1-36

---

Walkelin (Ferrers-429), son of Henry

1156-1157: "413. Charter of Henry II."; "Gachelin de Ferrariis" (Ferrers-429)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp120-140

1156-7: "638. Charter of Henry II."Walquelin de Ferrariis" (Ferrers-429)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp218-248

20 Jan 1174: "432.Agreement between Joan abbess of Caen and Robert son of Richard de Scrotonia."; "Waquelino de Ferrariis" (Ferrers-429)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp141-163

17 Apr 1197: "561. Charter of Richard I"; witness "Walkelino de Ferrariis" (Ferrers-429)

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp190-217

---

ROGERS?

---

Is this a different Ferrers family, entirely? 

7 Mar 1113: "792. Charter of Henry I."; witness "Rogerus de Ferrariis"

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp281-308

c. 1170: "546. Charter of Roger de Magnevilla"; witness "Rogerus de Ferrariis"

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/france/918-1206/pp190-217

Comments

Given that many Norman names, come from the region/town/manor they originally came from, it doesn't seem impossible that there are more than one Ferrers family.

In regards to what you call William's Line, Keats-Rohan thinks this line originated with Egenulph, and the mention of Egenulph and not William in the charter you refer to in another answer indicates that he was the more important and probably the inheritor of most of the Norman lands.  Given he is named first in the list of 3 (?) sons in the Charter about the founding of Tutbury Priory, is also thought to indicate he is the eldest.

---

William IV (c. 1130)

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Stephen, Caen

451 (1101-1105): Willelmi de Ferreriis

Henry II (c. 1157), son of William I

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of Bec-Hellouin

370 (8 Dec 1142): Henricus de Ferrariis

Hugh I, son of William I

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Evroul

629 (1124-1135): Hugh de Ferraria

Walkelin II (c. 1201), son of Henry I

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Abbey of St Evroul

638 (1156-1157): Walquelin de Ferrariis

Miscellaneous Eure

413 (1156-1157): Gachelin de Ferrariis

Abbey of the Holy Trinity, Caen

432 (20 Jan 1174): Waquelino de Ferrariis

Aquitaine: Miscellaneous

1253 (10 Jul 1190): Walkel de Ferrieres

Royal Charters, Etc

1291 (5 Jan 1194): Walkelino de Ferrariis

Abbey of St Taurin, Evreux

316 (15 Jan 1195): Wankelino de Ferreriis

Priory of St Stephen, Plessis-Grimould

561 (17 Apr 1197): Walkelino de Ferrariis

Henry III, son of Walkelin

Calendar of documents preserved in France

Royal Charters, Etc

1318 (13 Nov 1205): Henry de Ferreriis

---

Auguste Le Prévost, writing about the Ferrieres-Saint-Hillaires, believed that William IV was the son of William I, brother of Henry I. That seems to make the most sense, to me. Henry I doesn't seem to have much involvement with the family property in Normandy. Neither does Robert I. Engenulf's Duffield property goes to Robert I, rather than William IV, and the Derby line goes through Robert I, rather than Engenulf and William IV. Oakham seems to have been handed directly from the King to William IV, and wasn't part of Henry's land holdings.

Answer 8

This is, basically, what I'm coming up with, not including all siblings mentioned in other documents, for the core of each line.

Answer 9

I've added numerous sources that help map out the families better. There are still a few lingering issues ...

Walkelin Ferrières-3: 

1. Not sure where people are getting a wife, for him, and her listed grandfather didn't seem to have heirs, as his brother inherited his title. 
2. The accounts I did find on Gundred state she's a daughter of Henry, but that creates dating issues, plus there are other accounts of Gundred, daughter of Henry, marrying Ralph Foleschamp. 

Henri Ferrières-4: 

1. The accounts of a son William don't make much sense. If he's an older brother to Robert (whether as a separate 3rd brother or as Engenulf himself), then he, and his descendants, should inherit the bulk of the property. There seems to be a clear property divide between the Normandy/Rutland line and the Derby line, that was there from the start. There are only a couple mentions of Henri having an older brother, William, but I would guess that William is down from Henri's older brother, who would have inherited the property in Normandy from their father. The Rutland property is owned by the King, in 1086 and given directly to the Normandy line, at a later date.
2. Gundred confusion (as above). 
3. A Walkelin son only appears on some pedigrees. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of one. I think people are just picking different ways to try and attach the fitz Walkelin line to the Ferrers line. 
4. Emmeline is on some pedigrees, but I haven't found any evidence or accounts of her. 
5. Not sure where wife Bertha's parentage is coming from.

Robert II Ferrers-145: 

1. Similar to the Walkelin, son of Henri, above. 
2. This Walkelin Ferrers-400, however, seems to be trying to attach a different line to the Ferrers. A Walkelin fitz Gerard of Derby, who marries a Goda (no evidence of a de Toeni marriage). Father and son were money changers. They were just of Derby, not earls of Derby or Ferrers of Derby. 
3. The daughters of Ferrers-400 are then conflated with daughters from the Rutland Walkelin and the fitz Walkelin lines. The Walkelin fitz Gerard de Derby has sons. 
4. While a charter of Robert does seem to mention a wife named Margaret, that she's a Peverel seems to be circumstantial. The citation usually attributed to William II stating his grandmother was a Peverel doesn't seem to state that. It's an account of the acquisition of Peverel property, but doesn't say by marriage. 

William I Ferrers-11: 

1. No idea where the wife, Catherine, is coming from. 

William II Ferrers-93: 

1. Not sure where daughter, Agatha, is coming from. Maybe mixed up William II for I or III, both of which have Agathas.

---

The religious donations and confirmations lay the core male descent out pretty plainly, with few extras. Henry mentions wife, sons, and that he has daughters. Robert I mentions father. Robert II mentions father, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt, mother, wife. William I mentions father, grandfather, great-grandfather, wife, mother-in-law, and her father. William II mentions wife, father, and brother. William III mentions uncles and brother. The last Robert lists the entire previous line of confirmations, his father William, his grandfather William, then another William, then a Robert, then another Robert, then Engenulf, then Henry. 

---

I took the few pieces of the fitz Walkelin line we had, that were separate, and put them together. Still trying to piece that line together better. 

Walkelin Raborna-1 is at the top. 

---

I followed the Normandy line down from Henry Ferrers-430 a bit further, showing it kept going in its own right, after the split with England. 

Answer 10

Also ... I did come across another mystery. 

"(William, his elder brother, having been murdered in London some time before)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Ferrers,_2nd_Earl_of_Derby

I saw that account a few times, but without a source. Then I found an account in a book about juries in criminal cases, giving this case as an example of pre-jury water ordeal trials: 

"In the reign of Henry II. (A. D. 1177), the Earl of Ferrers having been murdered in London by some midnight assassins, the king ordered several citizens to be seized, and amongst others, one named John Old. He had to undergo the water ordeal, but failed, and then offered fifty pounds to save his life; but the king did not venture to take money for so notorious a crime, and ordered him to be hanged.", p 160

http://www.classicapologetics.com/f/Forsyth.pdf

The account in Anciennes loix des françois conservées dans
les coutumes engloises recueillies par Littleton, Vol. II, by David Houard:

"Tempore dicti Concilii, noctu interfectus est Londini, frater Comitis de Ferrariis & in plateas clam projectus. Postulantur cædis multi cives; inter hos nobilis & dives senex quidam Johannes. Qui cum judicio aquæ (id est, Ordalio) deprehensus sit culpabilis; suspendio traditur, licet Regi 500 lib. in redemptionem vitæ, obtulisset. Intelligendum autem est, examen hoc factum fuisse aqua calida, non frigida, quod Johannes nobilis esset; nam aqua frigida rustici solummodo examinabantur.", p 296 (on the left)

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/32298/32298-h/32298-h.htm

The 1177 dating doesn't seem to add up with Robert II, who had been dead about 17 years, by then, and about 38 years after he became the earl. This would have to be during William I, but it's still about 17 years after he became earl. If a brother of his was murdered, he must not have been the elder brother. Or, William II had an older brother, who was murdered before their father died. 

Comments

Justice had to be seen to be done.

---

Hehe. If he weighs more than a duck, then he's guilty! 

The Roger de Hoveden account being cited states that the murder happened while everyone was gathered in London for a large council, regarding the relations between Alphonso of Castille and Sancho of Navarre, in 1177. The investigation and sentencing appear to have quickly followed, with no gap in years. It just states it was the earl's brother, with no implication that it was an older Ferrers who died, or an earl who died, leaving a younger one the new earl. 

"During this council, the brother of the earl of Ferrers was slain by night at London, and thrown out from his inn into the mud of the streets, for which deed our lord the king took into custody many of the citizens of London ; among whom there was arrested a certain aged man of high rank and great wealth whose name was John ; he being unable to prove his innocence by means of the judgment by water, offered our lord the king fifty pounds of silver for the preservation of his life. But inasmuch as he had been cast in the judgment by water, the king refused to receive the money, and ordered him to be hanged on a gibbet."

https://archive.org/stream/annalsofrogerdeh01hoveuoft#page/450/mode/2up

So, it looks like William I de Ferrers must have had a brother, who was murdered. 

Answer 11

Conflated Ermentrudes:

Ermentrude 1:

Said to have 3 husbands ... 

William de Grendon, with whom she had a daughter, Margaret.

Quintin Talbot, with whom she had a son, William. 

Henry fitz Gerald, with whom she had William, Warin, and Alice. 

Ermentrude 2: 

Married William de Stafford and had issue. 

Ermentrude 3:

An Ermintrude "de Ferrers" supposedly marries Robert Talbot and has issue. 

---

Chris Phillips and Rosie Bevan, from over at medievalgenealogy.org.uk, discuss this a little. 

Ermintrude 3:

Chris: "Dugdale mentions that Robert Talbot, Lord of Gainsborough, had a wife named Ermentrude (elsewhere she was said to be living 18 John), and erroneously identifies her as the daughter of a Robert son of Walchelin of Egginton" 

... and the fitz Walchelin line has erroneously been attached to the Ferrers line, turning the account into a Robert Talbot marrying an Ermentrude de Ferrers. 

Which seems to have been conflated and turned into him marrying an Ermintrude, daughter of Walchelin de Ferrers and Goda de Toeni, parents that seem to be based on a Walchelin de Derby, moneyer, and his wife Goda, which have then been attached to the Ferrers and Toeni lines based purely on their given names. This Walchelin, however, doesn't seem to be connected to the Ferrers family (see Walchelin f. Gerard, p 51). And, there doesn't appear to be a daughter, Ermentrude. 

Ermentrude 1: 

Rosie brings up a court case, and concludes: "From this it seems that Margery de Grendon and William Talbot shared the same mother. However there is some conflict over which Talbot Ermentrude was married to." 

In Wing Parish, the property ownership travels from Hugh Talbot (same Hugh that's a grandfather of Robert?) to a Quintin Talbot to Henry fitz Gerald to Lady Ermentrude to William Talbot. 

At Wing Priory, there are suits against Quintin and then William, Talbot. 

That said Quintin, like Robert, is a descendant of a Hugh, has led some accounts to consider them to be the same individual, Robert Quintin Talbot. This presents some problems. 

Robert is still around in 1225/6. Grendon dies in 1203. If Grendon was the first husband and Robert the second, then Robert's son William, who seems to be an adult by 1218, couldn't be Ermentrude's son. This also means she started having children at about 1200 (Margaret Grendon), and even if she was say 15 years old, then, she'd be over 40, before marrying fitz Gerald, and then couldn't be the mother of those children, either. 

If, however, Quintin is a separate person, then Ermentrude could marry Grendon (dies 1203), have Margaret (born about 1202/3), marry Quintin (dies aft. 1209), have William, and still have time to marry fitz Gerald, and have his children (his children's birth dates look to have room to be pushed back a little, unlike Robert Talbot's). 

---

So, as far as I can tell, we should have ...

Ermentrude 1, b. bef. 1187, m. c. 1200-1202 (in time to have at least 1 daughter before husband dies in 1203) William de Grendon, should also have her marry bef. 1209 a Quintin Talbot (still alive 1209, holding Wing), as well as have her be the Ermentrude married to FitzGerold, by 1218 (when he holds Wing), FitzGerald dies in 1231 (Ermentrude then holds Wing), and she appears to die bef 1239 (when son William Talbot holds Wing). 

Ermentrude 2, b. 1215-1225, wife of William de Stafford.

Ermentrude 3, b. bef. 1182, m. bef. 1197 (their son William appears to be 21 by 1218), wife of Robert Talbot.

And, this Ermentrude should be disconnected from husbands, children, and parents (who should likely be disconnected from their parents), and merged somewhere, to make her disappear, unless there's some actual evidence for this connection, other than their given names. 

---

Any other thoughts, evidence?