Genealogy Wylie » Adam I de Stanley (1124-> 1166)

Personal data Adam I de Stanley 

• He was born in the year 1124 in Hooton, Wirral, Cheshire, England.
• He died after 1166 in Stanley, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, England.
• A child of Adam de Audley
• This information was last updated on March 15, 2023.

Household of Adam I de Stanley

He has/had a relationship with Joan Stanley.

Child(ren):

1. William I de Stanley  1166-> 1208 

Notes about Adam I de Stanley

=========
WIKIPEDIA
=========
Source above, includes portraits, paintings, maps and other
items not below; and working links and updates, is
none found yet

=======================prior posts===============================
None unless below

Adam de Stanley, brother of Liulf de Audley (father of Adam de Audley)living temp. Stephen I and Henry II. [Burke's Peerage]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STANLEY

Observations.-By a charter summarised by Dugdale, pr. by Round fromDugdale's copy of a copy, Adam, son of Liulf de Audley, granted toWilliam de Stanley, son of Adam de Stanley, the grantor's avunculus, thewhole of Stanley (co. Staffs), free from all the grantor's rights, for ayearly rent of twelve pence, to be paid by William and his heirs to Adamand his heirs; and Adam further gave William one half of Balterley, andthe service of Liulf in respect of all that he held from the grantor, tohold to William and his heirs from the grantor and his heirs by theperformance of forinsec service. The grants were stated to be made inexchange for Talk (o' the Hill); and Adam, doubting whether he couldwarrant Stanley, added the usual covenant. The places concerned lie inStaffordshire, on, or not far from, the Cheshire border, in a districtknown as the Moorland, which, because it was rough and apparentlyunprofitable, had not attracted the Normans. Balterley and Talk adjoinAudley; Stanley is some eight or nine miles further into Staffordshire.

In 1086 Audley, half Balterley, and Talk, were held in chief by anEnglishman, Gamel, (who was not the T.R.E. holder), and were assessed at2 virgates, half a virgate, and one virgate respectively. Stanley doesnot appear in Domesday Book, but it was in Leek, and was probablyincluded in Endon (one of the Audley holdings), which was among theKing's wastes. There was there land for one or two ploughs.

Round, who discusses the charter at length, remarks on the ambiguousnature of the word avunculus, which strictly meant "mother's brother,"but quite early and quite frequently came to be used as a synonym forpatruus. He suggests that Liulf de Audley and Adam de Stanley werebrothers, because, as he thinks, Gamel's holding had been divided betweenthem.

That they were brothers is probable. If Adam de Stanley had been brotherof the mother of Adam de Audley, the latter could have had no interest inor claim to Stanley. In fact, however, the Audleys were lords of Stanley,and the Stanleys held it from them at a rent. That the two were descendedfrom Gamel is, on the existing evidence, incapable of proof.

It seems possible that Round omitted to attach sufficient weight to twofacts, namely, that the Stanleys were tenants of the Audleys; and thatthe Audleys were tenants of the Verdons. There is no very early evidence;but when Henry de Audley died in 1275-76, it was found that he held inStaffs. of Theobald de Verdon the castle and park of Heighley, with thetown of Balterley, for a half knight's fee; and, in addition, Endon, Talkand Audley (then subject to dower); and a later inquisition in the sameyear discloses that he held in Rudyard (which is in Leek) 2 sh. rent ofassize, and (not explicitly in Rudyard) 12 pence from Walter de Stanley;which can only be the rent provided by the charter. In 1391 William deStanley is recorded as a tenant of Audley in the manor of Audley.Therefore in respect of these lands the Stanleys were never, so far asrecord evidence goes, anything more than tenants of the Audleys; and theAudleys were never more than tenants of the Verdons. In 1227 Henry deAudley, then becoming powerful, obtained from the King a confirmation ofhis title to his lands, including Audley, which, he said, he held of thegift of his then lord, Nicholas de Verdon. Now it is clear from thecharter cited above that the Audleys and the Stanleys were in possessionof their lands at least a generation before the date of that charter;which, upon the evidence as to Adam de Audley's activities, may havepassed about 1200. Therefore the gift cited by Henry de Audley can referonly to the latest recognition by the overlord of a feoffment of manyyears earlier. In 1280-81 William de Audley was sued by his mother forone-third of 12 pence rent in Stanley, as dower. In 1316 the lord of thevills of Audley, Balterley and Endon was recorded as Nicholas de Audley.Endon, Talk and Audley were not held of Verdon by knight service, and theAudleys are not named in Bertram de Verdon's 1166 Carta. These returnsare comparatively late; but Norman de Verdon was in possession of hisStaffordshire lands at least so early as 1130, in which year he appearsin the Pipe Roll as pardoned 2 sh. for Danegeld. His original lands inthe county, namely Audley, Talk, half Balterley, and Stanley, do nottogether exceed a hide.

The Audleys and the Stanleys had clearly been settled in their lands forsome time before the charter, because they took their names from theirholdings; and, since they bore different names, it is quite likely thatthe father of Liulf and Adam had no territorial surname. As Roundremarks, Liulf's name is evidence that he was of English stock; and it ispossible that the family was on the land before Verdon became its lord.Perhaps Gamel's lands were Liulf's "estate of inheritance," Stanley beingan addition by favour of the new Norman lord, without a recordedfeoffment. If so, Audley's inability to warrant would be explained; butthe evidence hardly carries the enquirer even so far as this.

Putting these speculations aside, the charter reads like the record of afinal concord terminating proceedings, perhaps begun by an assize of mortd'ancestor, the object of which was to obtain for William de Stanley andhis heirs a definition of his precise rights as Audley's tenant. As forTalk, if there was indeed any exchange of Talk for Balterley, it can onlyhave been an exchange of sub-tenancies. If Adam de Stanley and his sonhad ever held it independently of Audley, they must have held of Verdon;and then they could have had no power to substitute another tenant forthemselves.

The Robert de Stanley, who in 1130 owed 20 marks of silver for havingheld the office of sheriff for 5 years, does not seem to be connected inany way with the ancestors of the Earls of Derby. In the same year he waspardoned 6 sh. for Danegeld, so that it appears that he was atenant-in-chief. His lands have not been identified, but in 1156 "Mauricethe sheriff" was similarly pardoned 6 sh. for Danegeld. Robert may havebeen of the Stanleys of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Warwickshire,Yorkshire, Derby, Notts, or Essex, or the other Stanleys of Cheshire.[Complete Peerage XII/1:243-6, (transcribed by Dave Utzinger)]

------------------------------------

ADAM DE STANLEY, of Stanley, in Leek, Staffs, and possibly of Talk (o'the Hill), which he held from Liulf de Audley, was living temp. Stephen.[Complete Peerage XII/1:246, (transcribed by Dave Utzinger)]

Do you have supplementary information, corrections or questions with regards to Adam I de Stanley?
The author of this publication would love to hear from you!

Timeline Adam I de Stanley

Click on the names for more info. Symbols used:  grandparents    parents    brothers/sisters    children