Re: William de Lancaster I's uncle, Ketel Fitz Eldred

In a message dated 12/3/2005 1:53:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

"Fortunately, the attention of my learned and distinguished friend, Mr.
G. Andrews Moriarty, Ll.B., F.S.A., was attracted to this problem of
William de Lancaster and his antecedents in 12th-century Westmoreland
.... Mr. Moriarty's solution ... is that William de Lancaster's father,
Gilbert, was a Norman knight, as evidenced by the French Christian
names given to all his recorded children; whilst William's mother,
Godith, was clearly the sister of Ketel son of Eldred and thus of
native English stock (it will be recalled that Ketel was called William
de Lancaster's avunculus, a term which strictly speaking means
'maternal uncle'). It is even possible, as Mr. Moriarty surmises, that
Ketel's wife, Christian or Christina, may have been a Taillebois by
birth; for, according to Peter of Blois, Ivo himself 'had an only
daughter, nobly espoused' (see the Duchess of Cleveland's Battle Abbey
Roll, III, 345), and certainly William de Lancaster's granddaughter,
Helewise, along with her husband Gilbert fitz Renfrid, later confirmed
some of Ivo's grants to the abbey of St. Mary at York." [Reference:
George Washington, "The parentage of William de Lancaster, lord of
Kendal," in Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiq. & Arch.
Soc. n.s. 62) (1962): 95-97].

Given the above discussion, I find the evidence compelling that Ketel
Fitz Eldred was the uncle of William de Lancaster I. It is Mr.
Moriarty's position (and also that of Dr. Katherine Keats-Rohan), that
Ketel Fitz Eldred was the maternal uncle of William de Lancaster I.
That likewise makes sense to me.

Dear Doug,

These are THEORIES not proofs. Moriarty theorized one answer and Wilson
another. The term 'avunculus' is not definitive in light of the other
documentation and the idea that Godith was a sister of Chetell is speculation by
Moriarty to make this one piece of evidence fit with the claim of Helewise in the
1212 Curia Regis roll mentioned earlier.

Douglas Richardson...

Dear MichaelAnne ~

The learned Mr. Moriarty, a brilliant genealogist if ever there was
one, based his observations on the known chronology, the ononastics,
and available charter evidence. Dr. Keats-Rohan and I have both been
persuaded by the logic and reasoning of Mr. Moriarty's conclusions. In
sharp contrast, your alternative view upends the chronology, overlooks
the onomastics, twists the Latin, and ignores the charter evidence.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Don Stone...

Douglas,

Why not just answer Todd's question ("provide the work in which Mr. Moriarty
cited these documents, and his description of how he mustered these
factors"), and then the discussion can move on with him? How can he
usefully disagree with Mr. Moriarty, if you won't say which of his works you
have in mind?

-- Don Stone

Secondly Moriarty is wrong about Christina and her ancestry as was shown
yesterday in a post by J.C.B. Sharp. The land held by Ivo Taillebois reverted
to the crown as he left no legitimate heirs. The land came to Chetell from
Henry I for other reasons. No daughters of Ivo Taillebois brought land by
marriage to Chetell.

Beatrix Taillebois must have been illegitimate which is what Clay postulated
long ago. She probably wasn't old enough to have had a prior marriage before
her marriage to Ribald of Middleham. This can be shown by the documentation
concerning their son Ralph Taillebois.

One last note the Register of St. Bee's is not just a book. Wilson edited
the Register of the Abbey and compiled all the existent charters which make this
a primary source not a secondary source. Wilson's comments were made from
his knowledge in 1915 and generally are excellent.