Genealogie Wylie » Agnes de Aumale (± 1115-????)

Persoonlijke gegevens Agnes de Aumale 

• Zij is geboren rond 1115 in Holderness, North Riding Yorkshire, England.Bron 2
• Een kind van Stephen Count de Aumale en Hawise de Mortimer
• Deze gegevens zijn voor het laatst bijgewerkt op 9 april 2023.

Gezin van Agnes de Aumale

(1) Zij is getrouwd met Adam I de Brus.

Zij zijn getrouwd te 1st husband.Bron 2

Kind(eren):

1. Adam II de Brus  ± 1134-1196 

(4) Zij is getrouwd met William de Roumare.

Zij zijn getrouwd na 1142 te 2nd husband.Bron 2

(7) Zij is getrouwd met William de Roumare.

Zij zijn getrouwd na 1142 te 2nd husband.Bron 2

Notities over Agnes de Aumale

Ancestral Roots has Agnes m. Adam II de Brus, but that has been changed.

The following two posts to soc.genealogy.medieval indicate that the"accepted" order of wives for Adam I & II de Brus should actually bereversed:

From: Rosie Bevan ((XXXXX@XXXX.XXX))
Subject: Re: Domesday Descendants corrections: Harcourt & Brus
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-06-05 18:38:09 PST

Hi Cris

As you have commented, K. Keats-Rohan in Domesday Descendants [p.354,355] has listed Adam I de Brus of Skelton(d.1142) as married to Agnes ofAumale, and Adam II Brus (d.1196) as married to Juetta de Arches. This isin variance with Farrer's observations in vol. 3 of Early YorkshireCharters in which the opposite placement is upheld. The situation is nothelped by CP which claims [VII : 670] that Agnes of Aumale marriedWilliam de Roumare and secondly Piers de Brus.

A study of the chronology tends to support K-R's findings.

Stephen de Aumale, Agnes' father, came of age in 1090, indicating that hewas born about 1069. He married Hawise de Mortemer and they had 3 sons(William, Ingelram and Stephen) and 3 or 4 daughters (Matilda, Adelisaare names of two), of whom Agnes was supposedly the youngest. and about1127.[CP VII : 670 ; K-R Domesday Descendants p.225]. Stephen's son andheir is mentioned in a charter of 1115. [EYC 3; no 1304]. Assuming thisis William le Gros, he was born before 1109, as he was of age in 1130. Ata rough guess based on the dates of William le Gros, as a younger childAgnes would have been born between 1110-1120. This would place her moreappropriately as wife of Adam I, than Adam II, as the latter was born in1134 (of age in 1155). On the death of Adam I de Brus she had borne twosons - Adam and William. Adam the younger was placed in the custody ofWilliam le Gros, Count of Aumale.

The only piece of evidence which supports a marriage between theBrus/Aumale families is the claim in 1276, on the death of Avelina deForz without issue, some 150 years after the supposed event, of the fourcoheirs of Peter de Brus to the Holderness estate. Walter de Fauconbergand Agnes, Marmaduke Thweng and Lucy, Margaret widow of Robert de Ros,John de Bella Aqua and Laderina claimed to be heirs by descent fromAgnes de Aumale.

Agnes de Aumale married [secondly] William de Roumare and had three sons(William, Robert and Roger) by him before his death in 1151 [K-R DD:p.670]. The eldest, William later Earl of Lincoln was still a minor in1165 so was born later than 1144. This certainly fits within thechronology as Adam I died in 1142.

-snip-

Cheers

Rosie

Note; I corrected the above message, based on a later correcting post byRosie; the original message said that Stephen de Aumale succeeded hisfather who d. in 1127, when Stephen himself d. in 1127.

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

From: Cristopher Nash ((XXXXX@XXXX.XXX)-net.com)
Subject: Re: Domesday Descendants corrections: Harcourt & Brus
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-06-08 04:13:25 PST

Now I can quickly summarize the argument of Ruth Blakely, 'The Bruses ofSkelton and William of Aumale' in _Yorks Archeol Jnl_ (2001) 73:19-28,which appears to be the clincher leading Keats-Rohan in DD to reverse thetraditional order of two early Brus marriages, giving (1) the wife ofAdam I de Brus as Agnes d'Aumale and (2) the wife of Adam II de Brus asJuetta de Arches. Blaklely's article is devoted specifically to thisdouble question.

-snip-

On Agnes d'Aumale: Again Blakely starts with William Brown's reversal. Aclaim to the Aumale estate put forward in 1274 by the heirs of Peter IIIde Brus has regularly been accepted in evidence that the later Bruseswere descended from Agnes, and Blakely does not question this. She givesevidence on chronological grounds that Agnes could not have been the wifeof Robert I de Brus (Adam I's father) or of Peter I de Brus (Adam II'sson), and then provides an argument for her having been the wife of theremaining possible Brus, viz. Adam I, and makes out a case for her havingbeen married to her other husband, William II de Roumare after (notbefore, as some accounts have it) her Brus marriage [25-27]. The detailsare intricate and I'm not going to unpack them all here. Her conclusionis that "although the evidence is less conclusive than in the case ofJuetta, there are sufficient pointers to suggest that this was indeed thecase" and "well within the bounds of probability" [26, 27].

An important aspect of Blakely's argument is that this reconstruction ofthe 4 marriages of Juetta and Agnes resolves a number of problems thathave long dogged the Brus genealogy. A useful part of its development isa thoughtful assessment of the historical (inter-familypolitical/economic) background to these events. Rosie, I think when yourinterloan copy gets to you you'll find that the article parallels a goodpart of your smart chronological case, and yours may in fact lend itfurther support.

Hope this quick sketch helps.

Cris

Heeft u aanvullingen, correcties of vragen met betrekking tot Agnes de Aumale?
De auteur van deze publicatie hoort het graag van u!

Tijdbalk Agnes de Aumale

Klik op de namen voor meer informatie. Gebruikte symbolen:  grootouders    ouders    broers/zussen    kinderen