Roger de Mowbray, Knt., of Thirsk, Yorkshire, younger son of Magna Carta surety baron William de Mowbray, Knt., by his wife Avice _______, was born about 1220 (he came of age in 1241).[1][2][3] A manuscript that recounts the Mowbray ancestry names "Nigellum et Rogerum" as sons of "Willielmus de Molbray".[4]
Roger was heir in 1230 to his older brother Nele (or Nigel) de Mowbray.[2] As Roger was a minor in 1230, custody of his lands and his marriage were granted to Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent on 2 October 1230 and was later transferred to John de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln in 1234.[3] Roger had livery of his lands on 20 May 1241.[3] He was summoned for service in Scotland in 1258 and served against the Welsh in 1260[2] and was appointed with James de Audley to dictate the terms of the truce with Llewelyn on behalf of the king.[3] Roger appears to have sided with King Henry III in the early days of the opposition of the Barons.[2][3]
Marriages and Children
There are questions regarding the marriages and children of Roger de Mowbray. Complete Peerage states that Roger's first marriage was granted by his guardian, the Earl of Lincoln, to Thomas de Furnival "to the use of his first-born daughter. The King notified Roger's men of this on 13 April 1328, but no marriage appears to have taken place." Complete Peerage also goes on to say that "besides his son and successor, he had three daughters";[3] Cawley's database reflects this as well.[4] One of these daughters was Joan, who married Robert de Mohaut.[3][4] Richardson, however, recognizes Roger's first marriage, saying that Roger had two daughters by his first wife (including Joan) and six sons by the second wife.[1][2]
As the Magna Carta Project's primary sources are the works of Douglas Richardson, the following are the marriages and children named in Magna Carta Ancestry and Royal Ancestry:
Sir Roger married first, after 13 Apr 1238 (date of grant of marriage), to the eldest daughter (name unknown) of Thomas de Furnival by Bertha de Ferrers.[1][2] They had two daughters:
Joan, married Robert de Mohaut, Knt., of Haworden, Flintshire,[1][2][3] son of Roger de Mohaut and his wife, Cecily de Albini, of the Earls of Arundel.[4]
Roger died before 18 October 1263 when his lands and heir were granted to Richard, king of the Romans, and was buried in the church of the Friars Preachers, Pontefract, Yorkshire.[1][2][5] MedLands says he died on the island of Haxiholme (Isle of Axholme?).[4] Both MedLands and Complete Peerage agree on the place of his burial, "apud Pontemfractum" (Pontefract), but they give a different date of death: about November 1266.[3][4] This is the date when the king granted the wardship of Roger's lands and heir to his brother, Richard, who in turn granted it to Roger's widow, Maud, for 400 marks.[3]
Roger's widow, Maud, married secondly to Roger Le Strange[4] and they had issue.[2][3] Maud was Roger le Strange's first wife and they married before 15 July 1270.[2] Maud died before 4 April 1273.[2][3]
Research Notes
Mother
Roger's mother is marked as uncertain. Richardson shows only her given name, Avice, not a maiden name. See discussion included on her profile. ~ Noland-165 21:06, 26 December 2017 (EST)
Another Daughter?
Both Medlands and Complete Peerage state that Roger had three daughters and a son, Roger: "filias tres et filium unum… Rogerum", but they only name daughter Joan. Richardson names Joan and Elizabeth (or Isabel), but does not identify an additional daughter.
Maud Mowbray had been attached as a daughter of Roger and Maud Beauchamp. This relationship was tentatively suggested as a conjectural possibility in a 2004 discussion on soc.genealogy.medieval, 'Possible Identification of Maud (___) (de Audley) de Deiville'. The evidence adduced for this possible relationship is essentially circumstantial. With no firm evidence to support it, the profile for Mowbray-65 was detached in 2017. - Cayley-55 13:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources
↑ 1.001.011.021.031.041.051.061.071.081.091.101.111.12 Douglas Richardson, Royal Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families], 5 vols., ed. Kimball G. Everingham (Salt Lake City, Utah: the author, 2013), Vol. IV, pages 178-181 MOWBRAY #1, #2 Roger de Mowbray.
↑ 3.003.013.023.033.043.053.063.073.083.093.103.113.12 Cokayne, George Edward and H.A. Doubleday et. al eds. Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Vol. IX: Moels to Nuneham, 2nd edition. (London, 1936). Online at FamilySearch, pages 375-376.
↑ Great Britain. Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Henry III, vol. 5: 1258-1266. (London, 1910): page 210.
Richardson, Douglas. Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 4 vols., ed. Kimball G. Everingham. 2nd edition. (Salt Lake City, UT: the author, 2011). See also WikiTree's source page for Magna Carta Ancestry.
Richardson, Douglas. Royal Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 5 vols., ed. Kimball G. Everingham. (Salt Lake City, UT: the author, 2013). See also WikiTree's source page for Royal Ancestry.
I don't have the original charter yet but, "William returned to England sometime before October 1263, at which time he witnessed a royal charter granting his half-brother Richard, king of the Romans, the wardship of Roger de Mowbray's lands. "
I've proposed the merge of the two Mauds as you noted, Andrew. As we know, Richardson doesn't always name all of the children of a specific person. Based on John's proposal, she could be attached and marked as uncertain. (My two cents worth!). You can always start a G2G discussion.
I would prefer not to reattach Maud. But I have amended the research note with a link to the 2004 discussion in soc.genealogy.medieval. If firmer evidence emerges, it will be easy to reattach her. For Magna Carta Project Profiles, we very often deal with uncertain children in research notes rather than have them attached.
I agree the merge you suggest, Andrew, looks right. But should the last name at birth for Maud be Mowbray - which is far from established - or Unknown? On the evidence available at the moment, it looks to me like it should be Unknown as the identification with a Mowbray daughter is pretty tentative and essentially circumstantial. I doubt John Ravilious would claim it was more than surmise. He actually described it as a "conjecture".
Michael and Darlene, yes to be honest I am not sure if we SHOULD do any connections. I went looking to see if anyone came up with more evidence and did not find anything for now. Not sure there can ever be a standard way of deciding this. I suppose it is at least a good thing to note it when we find the reason for an extra person that someone once added - especially if it was a reasonable reason.
I agree with Michael - both about not reattaching her profile and that the merged profile should be Unknown. However, when I went to temporarily protect Unknown-232437 so that the merged profile would be Unknown, I found that Darlene had protected Mowbray-65 so that the merged profile would retain the Mowbray name.
Magna Carta Project policy calls for clear primary proof before attaching a child not named in Richardson to a project profile. As Michael notes, the proof that Maud is Roger's daughter, or even a Mowbray, is circumstantial.
in our last episode... Cawley began a comment, given in full here: "If this is correct, she would have been Agnes, daughter of William Earl of Arundel & his wife Matilda de Saint-Hilaire, but the identification of this person has not yet been corroborated from other sources."
Cawley cites just the one source; Richardson references several, but none primary.
Up to y'all whether you want to mark his relationship to Avice (Aubigney) Mowbray as Certain or Uncertain. It _is_ Certain his mother was Avice, and the profile Aubigny-4 is certainly intended to represent that Avice, who may or may not be daughter of William d'Aubigny, 2nd Earl of Arundel & his wife Maud St Hilary (and her relationship to them is marked Uncertain).
Hi! I marked his relationship with his mother as uncertain because the profile has her as Aubigney, even though neither Richardson nor Cawley commits to who her parents are and her relationships with them are marked uncertain.
Reading the fine print given by both (Richardson & Cawley), it seems to me that the scale between Certain and Uncertain (since those are our choices) tips toward Certain.
Cawley cites a manuscript and says "many of the details in which relating to the early generations of the family are inconsistent with other sources" as saying Willihelmus primogenitus et hæres Nigelli de Molbray married [filiam] comitis de Arundel Agnetem who was mother of his two sons[1120].
He then notes that "If this is correct, she would have been Agnes, daughter of
Source: "Royal Ancestry" D. Richardson 2013 Vol. IV. p. 179.
Roger De Mowbray, Knt., born about 1220. He married (1st) after 13 April 1238 ______ De Furnival, daughter of Thomas de Durnival, by Bertha daughter of William de Ferrers, Earl of Chester. They had two daughters, Joan and Elizabeth (or Isabel). He married (2nd) before 1257 Maude De Beauchamp, daughter of William de Beauchamp, Knt., by Ida, daughter of William Longespee, Knt., Earl of Salisbury (illegitimate son of King Henry II of England). They had six sons, Roger, Knt. [1st Lord Mowbray], John, Edmund, William, Andrew, and Robert. Sir Roger de Mowbray died shortly before 18 October 1263.
Featured Asian and Pacific Islander connections:
Roger is
30 degrees from 今上 天皇, 23 degrees from Adrienne Clarkson, 25 degrees from Dwight Heine, 32 degrees from Dwayne Johnson, 27 degrees from Tupua Tamasese Lealofioaana, 25 degrees from Stacey Milbern, 25 degrees from Sono Osato, 38 degrees from 乾隆 愛新覺羅, 25 degrees from Ravi Shankar, 27 degrees from Taika Waititi, 25 degrees from Penny Wong and 22 degrees from Chang Bunker
on our single family tree.
Login to see how you relate to 33 million family members.
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015031081048?urlappend=%3Bseq=393
Potentially we can reattach as uncertain, and merge with Unknown-232437
I agree the merge you suggest, Andrew, looks right. But should the last name at birth for Maud be Mowbray - which is far from established - or Unknown? On the evidence available at the moment, it looks to me like it should be Unknown as the identification with a Mowbray daughter is pretty tentative and essentially circumstantial. I doubt John Ravilious would claim it was more than surmise. He actually described it as a "conjecture".
edited by Michael Cayley
Magna Carta Project policy calls for clear primary proof before attaching a child not named in Richardson to a project profile. As Michael notes, the proof that Maud is Roger's daughter, or even a Mowbray, is circumstantial.
Cawley cites just the one source; Richardson references several, but none primary.
Up to y'all whether you want to mark his relationship to Avice (Aubigney) Mowbray as Certain or Uncertain. It _is_ Certain his mother was Avice, and the profile Aubigny-4 is certainly intended to represent that Avice, who may or may not be daughter of William d'Aubigny, 2nd Earl of Arundel & his wife Maud St Hilary (and her relationship to them is marked Uncertain).
Cheers, Liz
Reading the fine print given by both (Richardson & Cawley), it seems to me that the scale between Certain and Uncertain (since those are our choices) tips toward Certain.
Cawley cites a manuscript and says "many of the details in which relating to the early generations of the family are inconsistent with other sources" as saying Willihelmus primogenitus et hæres Nigelli de Molbray married [filiam] comitis de Arundel Agnetem who was mother of his two sons[1120].
He then notes that "If this is correct, she would have been Agnes, daughter of
continued...
Roger De Mowbray, Knt., born about 1220. He married (1st) after 13 April 1238 ______ De Furnival, daughter of Thomas de Durnival, by Bertha daughter of William de Ferrers, Earl of Chester. They had two daughters, Joan and Elizabeth (or Isabel). He married (2nd) before 1257 Maude De Beauchamp, daughter of William de Beauchamp, Knt., by Ida, daughter of William Longespee, Knt., Earl of Salisbury (illegitimate son of King Henry II of England). They had six sons, Roger, Knt. [1st Lord Mowbray], John, Edmund, William, Andrew, and Robert. Sir Roger de Mowbray died shortly before 18 October 1263.
Thank you!