Records

OF THE

Anglo-Norman House of Glanville

FROM A.D. 1050 TO 1880.

Dedicated by Permission to

LORD A.C. HERVEY

BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS

BY

Wm. URMSTON S. GLANVILLE-RICHARDS, Esq.,

EDITOR OF "THE PARISH REGISTERS OF WINDLESHAM," ETC.

LONDON:
MITCHELL AND HUGHES, 140 WARDOUR STREET, W.
1882.

Right Honourable and Right Reverend Lord A.C. Hervey,

LORD BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS.

The obligation I am under to your Lordship is great, since it was your interesting and learned Work on the "Family of Hervey" which gave me the first impulse to search for records and notable facts connected with the Glanville Family, and the following pages are the results of my labours.

However unworthy the arrangement and the compilation in general may be, I have the satisfaction of being able to assure your Lordship that my researches have been accompanied with a determination to keep strictly to facts, without polluting truth with fiction or romance, and adhering to the testimony of the highest authors, as well as the evidence of the Public Records, Private Deeds, and MSS. of antiquity.

To say more is unnecessary; if this little Work possess merit, it will plead its own cause.

Again expressing to your Lordship my sincere thanks for the honour you have conferred upon me,

I am, my Lord,
Your most obedient Servant,
WM. URMSTON S.GLANVILLE-RICHARDS

PREFACE.

In offering the following pages for perusal the Author fully admits his liability to criticism, and also seeks it. It cannot be supposed that this Work does not contain some slight errors: what family history comprising the long period of nearly nine hundred years can be absolutely perfect? and pedigrees above all other works ought to be most cautiously accepted. The Author does not claim any fairy ancestor or romantic king for the root of the Glanvilles: he took it for granted that they were either descendants of Adam or some tailless ape; nor has he attempted, as Mr. Pym Yeatman observes in the very valuable Introduction he has so kindly written for this little Work, and for which the Author now expresses to him his sincere gratitude, to give any lengthy account of the family previous to their settlement in England at the time of the Conquest, although he has reason to believe there is still evidence to prove a descent for nearly three hundred years; and there can be but little doubt that the name of Glanville was of importance in Normandy long before the invasion of this island by Duke William, and it is certain that it was sufficiently well known to command attention after its settlement here. But what the Author thinks he may claim on behalf of the family is this : that it is one of the very few original Norman houses who can undoubtedly shew an authenticated male descent from the time of "Domesday" to the present without altering or losing its surname. He believes it is a fact that only a few male descendants of those warlike Normans exist now in England, unless they are to be found amongst the lower classes of the people. Those noble Baronial houses gradually became extinct or to be represented by a female who either entered the cloister or married into a totally distinct line. The Crusades, the many Continental wars, and the Civil wars which have unfortunately been waged in England, no doubt added greatly to the downfall and extinction of nunbers of these Anglo-Norman houses, and although others rose up and filled their places, yet they were not (few instances excepted) the actual representatives of those Baronial houses.

It is a fact that the Glanvilles fell from the powerful and influential position they held under the early Norman and Plantagenet kings to a lower social status. More than probable the cause of its seclusion for a time was the part Gilbert de Glanville, Earl of Suffolk, played against King Henry III., and that monarch, to repay his undutiful subject, confiscated his lands. This may be one of the causes; but there is another, which, while pregnant with interest, opening as it does one"s mind to further research, demonstrates clearly that a great portion of the Glanville lands, belonging to the elder branch, passed into the hands of heiresses. The Barony of Bromholm, for instance, was held by William de Glanville, called Earl Glanville, and so on, until his great-great-grandson, Geoffrey de Glanville, dying without issue, the property descended to his sisters and co- heiresses, and through them into the noble families of Plantagenet, Pecche, Baldwin, De Grey, and De Boville, and also through other younger branches into the families of Vesey, Ufford, Wingfield, Neville, De La Pole, Creke, etc. A considerable portion fell into the hands of the Church, the Glanvilles having founded and endowed seven monasteries or religious houses in different parts of England. All these causes went towards the disintegration, and perhaps ultimate downfall, of this once powerful house; but although its members slumbered for a time in rural retreats, casting off the pageants of Royal Courts, and contenting themselves with the lives of country gentlemen, yet it is curious to note the fact, that that latent talent for the Law was still alive, and burst forth with considerable energy after a lapse of about 400 years; and it may be said with truth that, although the times had changed, the Glanville warrior, lawyer, and statesman of the years 1130-1190, was well represented by the Glanville lawyer and statesman of 1589-1660.

Mr. Pym Yeatman seems inclined to think that there is something wanting in the pedigree from the time of the Conquest to that of the Lord Chief Justices. In this the Author cannot agree with him: the only doubt appears to be in identifying Robert de Glanville of "Domesday" either as the brother of the Sire de Glanville, or else his eldest son. The origin of the noble House of Ormonde is of great interest, and research has not yet enabled genealogists to prove who was the grandfather of Herveus fil. Hervei. Although many more able genealogists than the Author have attempted to produce a longer descent than can be accurately traced, and to hang the House of Ormonde on to any celebrated Norman House that seems fit to receive it, yet, of all the many suggestions on the subject, and considering it is such an obscure and doubtful one, the Author thinks the external evidence allying them by birth (it is well known they were by marriage) to the House of Glanville, brought forward in this Work, may be tolerated. One thing certainly clear is, that they owed their rise to the celebrated Lord Chief Justice Glanville, and that they to this day bear the Glanville arms.

It is curious how certain professions and occupations run in families. In this case the Law was their forte. They were essentially what might be termed a Legal Family, commencing with Sir Hervey de Glanville in the time of King Stephen; his more famous son, Ranulph, Lord Chief Justice; then we have William de Glanville, a Lord Justiciary; Gilbert de Glanville playing the double part of Bishop of Rochester and Lord Chief Justice of England; Osbert de Glanville, a Baron of the Exchequer; Sir Roger de Glanville, Baron of the Exchequer; Adam de Glanville, a Justiciary; Gerard de Glanville, and in later years Sir John Glanville, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas; his son, Sir John, Speaker of the House of Commons, and Serjeant-at-Law; and many others of lesser repute. Members of the family were authors of note, and works of their pen are to be seen at the present day. The most curious of these are the writings of Bartholomew de Glanville, a monk, who wrote in 1360, and of the Rev. Joseph Glanville, Rector of Bath 1630-80.

The Author has endeavoured to work out the history of all the branches of the family, and though he has succeeded in doing so in many cases through the help of Parish Registers and Wills, yet there are a few whose legal origin is doubtful; with those it was not in his province to interfere.

A few words will not be out of place here as to the source whence information connected with Family History is to be forthcoming. Of all works in the history of English antiquities, "Domesday Book" stands first ; this is a starting-point for research. With it may be classed the " Pipe Rolls " and the " Red Book of the Exchequer ; " these latter give particulars of many noble families, and commence only about fifty years after " Domesday Book " was compiled. Then from the time of Henry II. there is a continuous series of Rolls which contain matter referring to every social grade. Of these the most important are the Rolls of the King's Court, the Assize Court, and Court of the Exchequer. A vast number of Legal Documents (the true source to look for all family information) have been most ruthlessly destroyed or lost by persons whose feelings or tastes must certainly have ranked below the average. At the time of the Dissolution of the Monasteries no care was taken of the libraries or MSS. belonging to those institutions, and therefore the natural consequence was that most valuable evidences were destroyed. The disgraceful manner in which Wills and Parish Registers were kept fully bears out the words of a well-known writer: "There is no period of our history more difficult for the genealogist than in the commencement of the eighteenth century." This can hardly be credited, but all the same it is an unfortunate fact.

There are a good many things to be said in favour of the management of the Public Record Office, and, with regret be it admitted, many things against it. The Author believes it is truly asserted that the building is far too small to contain all the National Records, and, because this is the case, many of them are condemned to be -what is termed "Pulped." Now, considering the large sum of public money granted for the purpose of building a sufficiently commodious house for storing the Records of the Realm, this "pulping" is uncalled for and unnecessary, and decidedly ought not to be permitted. There is another thing which requires considerable alteration. It seems to the Author that there is always such a mystery connected with the indices and calendars. Without one knows-and then it takes nearly a lifetime to attain that knowledge-the ins and outs of this extraordinary indexing system, it is almost impossible, without wasting a vast amount of valuable time, to get at what is required. Surely it is as easy to index in a simple yet comprehensive manner as it is to take so much pains to frighten the genealogist away.

In closing, the Author must acknowledge the kind and valuable assistance he has received from Miss E. Holt, Mr. J. Pym Yeatman, the late Colonel Chester, Mr. Baring-Gould, Mr. Reginald Carew Glanville, Mr. Ranulph Glanville, and other members of the family. Captain J. M. Glubb kindly relieved the Author by making the Index, and to him he is greatly indebted.

Lastly, the Author hopes that this little Work may be of value, even if only to stimulate further research, and he will be indeed grateful for any additions or corrections.

WINDLESHAM, SURREY,
September 1, 1882.

INTRODUCTION

BY

JOHN PYM YEATMAN, ESQ., BARRISTER-AT-LAW.

Robert de Glanville of Domesday held, amongst other manors, that of Benhall, which was held by Ranulf, the Chief Justice, at a later date, and the natural inference would be that he inherited it; but there is no sort of proof or record in this book offered to support it, and he may have obtained it by marriage with the coheiress of Valoins. The first positive proof we come to (p. 7) is a charter of Stephen's, whilst Earl of Mortain, and therefore probably made in the latter part of the reign of Henry 1. (Stephen himself was only born in 1090), confirming the gift of William de Glanville of the churches of Bacton and Glenham to the monks of Castle Acre (properties some of which were part of the possessions of Robert de Glanville of Domesday); and on the preceding page we have the later charter of Bartholomew de Glanville, confirming the gifts of his father William to the same Priory, and Ranulf fil. Hervey de Glanville is a witness. Weever and Camden assert that the Priory was founded in 1113 by William de Glanville ; and G. (Gaufridus) de Glanville, Ranulf, the son of Hervey, and Bartholomew, the son of William, are therefore probably descendants of the family, if not the actual descendants of Robert de Glanville of Domesday. The latter is most probably the case. It would be interesting, if possible, to clear up the missing evidence in this pedigree, and to shew conclusively the descents step by step; but that may now be impossible, and all that can positively be affirmed is that here is a genuine pedigree (imperfect possibly in the placement of certain of the links) deduced from the time of Domesday; whether a closer search in the "Rotuli Curiic Regis" would produce the necessary evidence is a question which must be deferred until something is done to utilise and make these Rolls accessible to the public.

Mr. Glanville-Richards devotes a very small space - only a third of a page - to the history of the family prior to the date of Domesday, and it must be admitted at once that the importance of the family is principally owing to the personal greatness of Ranulf, Lord Chief Justice of England, in the reign of Henry II., and the interest no doubt centres in .him, and not in the Norman family which gave birth to his Domesday ancestor; still it is a matter of interest to learn something of their early history, and the writer is indebted to Lord Arundel of Wardour for ca,lling his attention to the publication of this book, and to the fact that the writer's own materials for the "History of the House of Arundel" supply some evidence upon the subject.

Mr. Glanville-Richards, upon the authority of Dodsworth MS., and Gabriel D'Umoulin's "Historie Generale de Normandie," etc., etc., asserts that the Sire of Glanville was one Ranulf fitz Ranulf, who entered into England in the train of William the Conqueror, and who by his wife Flandrina had issue Robert (who is assumed to be the Domesday holder), William, Dean of Liseaux, Walter, and Hervey. About 1064 one Ranulf de Glanville was a witness to one of Robert de Mowbray's charters (see "Gallia Christr.," xi., Inst. 60, and p. I of this Work).

The annals of the House of Arundel, however, contain an earlier notice of the family, and it was to this that Lord Arundel directed the writer's attention. The head of the family of Albini, Niel or Nigel, Vicomte of St. Sanveur, with Hamon aux Dents, his brother, was the leader of the conspiracy to drive the Bastard of Robert II. from the throne of Normandy, and to place upon it its legitimate heir, Guy, Duke of Burgundy. That conspiracy culminated disastrously for the conspirators at the famous battle of Val de Dunes, which was fought about 1047, and Niel de St. Sauveur fled into exile, whilst Hamon aux Dents was taken prisoner. Niel was himself the head of a younger branch of the ducal family of Normandy, and closely allied to the neighbouring House of Brittany, and in Brittany some of his family, and probably he himself, for a time found shelter, whilst others settled in England, and possibly there obtained their appellation of Albini.

The Duke William of course confiscated all the family property within his reach, and, amongst other estates, he disposed of the Lordship of the Isles of La Manche, half of which since the days of Rollo had been in the enjoyment of the family of St. Sanveur, and the other half in that of the Vicomtes of Bayeux, his own and Bollo's near relatives.

There are still extant proofs of the charter of Duke William, by which he gave to the Abbey of Marmoutier the several churches which had belonged to the Vicompts of St. Sauveur, and which were situated in the Island of Guernsey (Greneroy), one of the Isles of La Manche. Copies of this charter are to be found in the Bibl. National of France, MS. Latin, 3441, t. 1, p. 194; 12,878, f. 150; and 12,880, fol. 15; and in vol. 77 of Baluze's Coll., f. 43.

This grant included the churches of St. Peter de Portu, St. Andrew de Patenti Pomerio, St. Sanson Episcopi, St. Martin de la Berlosa, St. Mary de Tortevalle, and St. Trinity, with all their tithes of fruits as well as of animals. It was made in the presence of himself, signing as Earl (Comitis), Meheldis, his wife, Robert, his son, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, Geoffrey, Bishop of Constantine, Ralf the Chamberlain, William Fitz Osborn, William de Durvilla (Clinevilla), Ralf Taison, Roger Montgomery, Richard de Belfo, Richard, Vicomte, Gauteu Vifardi, Roger de Bellainonte, and certain clerics.

Earl William described himself as holding this property in dominion, but the true owner, the Vicomte of St. Sauveur, was still a person of consequence out of Normandy, and his family were ancient benefactors of the Abbey of Marmoutier. About the same time (therefore probably in 1048) the monks obtained from the Vicomte of St. Sauveur for a consideration a charter which would be of interest under any circumstances, but which is especially important to this inquiry. Copies are to be found in the Bibl. Natl., MS. Latin, 3441, t. 1, p. 196; Coll. Baluze, vol. 77, f. 58. It is in these words:-

"Noverint cuncti futuris nobis temporibus successuri Niellum quondam Vicecomitem Normannensis patriae, auctirizasse Sancto Martino ejusque monachis Majoris Monasterii quicquid comes ejusdem patriae donaverat eis in insula que Grenerolium nominatur, ita ut, si aliquando, favente Deo, reverteretur in supradictam patriam atque in honorem pristinum, unde ejectus erat quando istud fecit auctoramentum, partem quan- dam ex eisdem rebus quam ipse Canonicis Sancti Salvatoris donaverat, et monachis supradictis auctorizare non potestat (?), eosdem canonicis habere permitteret, et tertiam partem quadraginta libraram quas pro prefato acceperat auctoramento monarchis redderet, nisi ejectis canonicis, locum illum ipsi susceperunt, atque aliquos ex se ad habitandum ibidem constituerunt, quod si facere vellent, ipse canonicos expelleret, locumque monachis omni modis liberum traderet, ut in perpetuum. deinceps possiderent et locum et illarum partem rerum et universa postremo que ad eundem pertinent locum."

To this document were the following witnesses on the part of Nigel's family (de familia mea):-- Ingono senescal, Rainald Foliot, Richard de Sturgavilla, Gaufredi fil. Robert Venator, NIEILLO DE GLANVILLA, and Rudolf Cammerlengo, and a certain number of witnesses on the part of the Abbey.

There appears to be another charter, made before the same witnesses, in very similar terms, copies of which are also to be found in the Bibl. Natl. Collection; Moreau, vol. Xl., f. 202; Baluze, vol. 77, f. 46; MS. Latin, 5441, iv., p. 125.

Nigel de St. Sauveur was shortly afterwards restored to his possessions and honours, and by a charter, which is also copied in Latin (MS. 5441, t. 1, p. 195; Coll. Baluze, vol. 77, f. 36; and MS. Latin, 12,878, f. 131, and 12,880, f. 14), he confirmed the possessions of the same six churches to Marmoutier in the presence of Adela, his wife, Roger and William, his sons, Ingulfus dapifer, Rogerus fil. Toraldi, Unfredus filius Anquilli, Rainaldus, Foliot, Richard de Sturevilla (Sturgavilla), Gosfred fil. Robert Venator, NIGELLUS DE GLANVILLA, Rodulphus cameraria (9), Ranulfus Capellanus, Serlus filius Alveredi, Ricardus Britesonis filius, very nearly the same witnesses who attested the former charters made whilst the Albini family was in exile, therefore evidently closely connected with them, as indeed the Christian name of Nigel, in the case of Glanville, would seem to testify.

Mr. Glanville-Richards assumes that the Lordship of Glanville was a place still called by that name in the arrondissement of Port Leveque (Font l'Eveque). This may be so, but nothing is more common than for a family to give their proper name to many places which, at times belonged, to them, and there seems to be great reason for supposing that the Lordship of Glanville -was close to St. Sauveur's. The name of Glanville is clearly identical with that of Granville, or Graville, the lordship of which was held under the Vicompts of St. Sauveur, and was situated very near to their chateau. It is probable that Glanville is the oldest form of the name; we do not find any but Glanvilles connected with the St. Sauveur family at this date, but later we find several of the name of Granville, or rather under the Latin form of it, Magnaville. Eudes, Viscount of the Cotentin, who for some reason became possessed of the property of his family, in a charter to Marmoutier, dated 1081, had as a witness one Rodolphus de Magnavilla - possibly the Ranulf of Mr. Glanville-Richards' work (for these names are convertible). Nor is this the only form under which the name appears; it is sometimes written Mandeville, [fn2] sometimes Morville, Grosville, Geroville, and again Stuteville or Estoutville (Stout being a Gaelic equivalent of "grand" or "prominent")all words bearing the same meaning. Uor is also Gaelic for "large, " "great, " hence Grossville. There is avery important charter, or rather series of charters, of the date of 1104, confirmed by Eudes the Vicomte to St. Sauveur's ("Chartulary, " fol. 14), concerning the Church of Grosville, or as it was called St. Martin's of Geroville. One Nigellus was Presbiter of the place, and he was the brother of Roger, and Brian was his son. Roger signed the deed as Rogero de Magnavilla, and Gaufridus his brother also attests - possibly Gaufridus the founder of Bromholm with Nigel of Flaumville, Nigel of Hautville, a relation of the Albinis and Mowbrays, and others. In a later part of the same deed Richard de Morvilla - possibly Richard de Beaufoy, if he was still living - signs. Eudes the Viscount, with Rohaise the Viscountess (the daughter of Walter Giffard, who afterwards married Peter de Valoins), also signs, expressly declaring the Magnavilles or Grandvilles to be his knights ; and later the same Roger de Magnaville attests another charter on the same subject, appending his signature immediately after that of William de Albini.

So late as 1220 Henry Estuteville gave what Robert his father held in Granville to the Abbey of Fiscanium.

Here there is evidence of the family of Granville, Estoteville, Glanville, holding land at Granville for some 200 years, and it is by no means of light importance that the first holder of lands in England, Robert de Glanville, the Domesday holder of Suffolk, held his lands directly under Robert Malet of Granville whether Granville was the original name of the Malets is a subject well worth inquiry. Like the Albinis and the Glanvilles, they were undoubtedly settled in England prior to the Conquest, and both of them were connected with the Mowbrays and Bigods and Albinis.

Mr. Glanville-Richards produces a charter of Robert de Mowbray's of 1064. It is the first date he mentions. To this charter Ranulf de Glanville is a witness. It is worth recording that Roger de Mowbray at one time possessed Granville, or land within it, since he gave it with his danghter as her dowry to the Priory of Caen. He was in some way closely connected with the House of Albini.

M. L. J. B. Mayeux Douat, in his History of Granville, states that Roger de Granville or Magnaville, in 1093, gave Foucarville to the Abbey of Monteburg, and that he witnessed the charters of Richard de Redvers to the same Abbey. The sister of (and aunt of another) Richard de Redvers married Hamon aux Dents.

In 1112 there is a Geoffry de Granville a witness to Henry I.'s charter to Savigne; in 1137 there is mention of a Stephen de Granville, and in 1191 Rodolf - all names of the English Glanvilles. In 1054 Ranulf de Glanville and Raoul de St. John together attest a charter of William Pichinots to Mount St. Michael, an Abbey greatly benefited by the Albinis; and later a William de Glanville is mentioned as a witness at the same Abbey. All this is fragmentary, but it is the result of no especial search made for the history of this family, but the debris of searches made for an entirely different purpose. It is given in the hope of inducing a more complete and exhaustive search into the early history of the family.

A few lines on the origin of the family.

Sir Bernard Burke gives as the pedigree of the Granvilles, who were Lords of Bideford, in Devon, in the reign of Henry II., that they descend from Richard de Beaufoy, son of Robert fitz Hamon, Lord of Corbeil, whom he asserts to be a younger son of Rollo. There is a slight confusion perhaps, but the main argument appears to be correct. Richard de Beaufoy was the brother, not son, of Robert fitz Hamon, the younger son of the famous Hamon aux Dents, who fell in the battle of Val de Dunes, and who was undoubtedly of Grenvile or Granville, which was the ancient inheritance of his family (see M. de Gerville's account of this family) ; and, what is still more curious, Nigel de St. Sauveur and Hamon aux Dents were brothers, or at any rate half-brothers, both of them certainly descendants, not of Rollo, but probably of Malahulc his uncle, and therefore both of them attached by the closest ties to Granville: hence it is not surprising that Nigel de Glanville is one of Nigel de St. Sauveur's chief knights (de familia mea), and it is extremely probable that the great families of Malet, Grandville, Morville, Stuteville, and Glanville are branches of the Ducal family of Normandy and all of the same stock.

Richard de Beaufoy or de Glanville had a son and a grandson named Robert.

A very interesting question is mooted in this book as to the origin of Theobald Walter, the first Butler of Ireland, the ancestor of the great family of Ormonde. Mr. Glanville-Richards claims him for a member of that family, whilst Lord Arthur Hervey, the present Bishop of Bath and Wells, has, in a paper read before the Suffolk Archaeological Institution, as firmly annexed him to his own. It is worth while to weigh the pretensions of the rival claimants.

It should be premised that the older Heralds assert that Theobald Walter was a great-nephew, or some say cousin-german, of Strongbow, Earl of Clare. [fn 3]

It may also be as well to mention as an undisputed fact that Theobald Walter was nephew of the Lord Chief Justice Glanville, or rather of his wife, the Lord Chief Justice and one Hervey Walter, his father, having married sisters, the daughters of Theobald de Valoins, from whom probably was derived his name of Theobald, though possibly there was another reason for it. Mr. Glanville-Richards claims that Hervey Walter and the Chief Justice were brothers - this has to be proved. It was also undoubtedly through the Lord Chief Justice, and not through the influence of the Clare family, that Theobald Walter set foot in Ireland. (All facts in favour of the contention of Mr. Glanville- Richards.) We read at pages 33-4 that when King Henry invested Prince John with the government of Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice accompanied him, and that Prince John by charter made at Waterford enfeoffed Randolf de Glanville and Theobald fitz Walter, his nephew, with four and a half cantreds in the land of Limerick. Of Hervey Walter, Theobald's father, little or nothing is known except that he married a daughter of Theobald de Valoins, and that he gave certain land at Wyngfield, Sikebrock, and Insted to Butley Priory, which was founded by the Lord Chief Justice Glanvillein 1171. (See page 38.)

There is no date given to Hervey Walter's grant, but as the Lord Chief Justice is not a witness - the place of honour being filled by his son-in-law William de Auberville it was probably made after his death, which occurred in 1190. On the other hand, Hubert Walter, Roger, and Hamone, the younger sons of the grantor, are mentioned, no title being given to any of them, whereas Hubert Walter was created Bishop of Salisbury in the lifetime of the Lord Chief Justice.

The terms of this charter should supply some evidence of relationship, if any existed, between the grantor and the Lord Chief Justice - unfortunately the evidence is of the slightest value. The grant is made for the health of the souls of the grantor and his wife Matilda, and of all their children, and for the souls' health of Ranulf de Glanville and Bertha his wife, and of their children, and for the souls' health of all their ancestors, relations, and friends, - too general to be positive evidence. The fact that the wives of Hervey and Randolf were the only children of Theobald de Valoins might account for all this, and it is too much to call it in aid in proof of any relationship, much less that of brothers, between the two husbands, more especially as in all probability they were related in some way; but surely if there was so near a relationship as that of brothers between them it would have been mentioned in the charters.

It is curious that, of the whole family, only Stephen de Glanville and William de Glanville, a cleric, were witnesses; nor was Hervey Walter a witness to the Chief Justice's foundations of Butley or Leiston. Theobald Walter and Roger Walter were witnesses at Leiston, but no one of the name appears at the foundation of Butley, from which it would seem that the families were for some reason not upon friendly terms. Hervey de Glanville was a witness to the Chief Justice's grant to Butley, and no doubt he had a brother Hervey; but in the face of the difference of these surnames it is too much to assume their identity, as does Mr. Glanville-Richards. Nor is the name of Walter in any way accounted for; it was clearly a surname, and it was kept up as a surname by all the known descendants of Hervey Walter. [fn 4]

Both Lord Arthur Hervey and Mr. Glanville-Richards assume that the other Herveys, who afterwards are found in Suffolk, were descendants of Hervey Walter, but they offer no proof in support of the proposition, since these Herveys were holding lands which at domesday were Hervey's of Berri, and in all probability they are his descendants.

No proof whatever is given of the residence in Norfolk of Hervey Walter prior to his marriage with Maude de Valoins, except a piece of evidence which, whilst it shews that there was a Hervey fil. Hervey in Norfolk at the time of the first great Roll of the Pipe, only shews that there was but one such person, and this may more properly be appropriated, to Hervey de Glanville, the father of the Chief Justice, who was Chamberlain to King Stephen, and who was certainly living in the country at that date. From the very interesting speech, given at page 26 of this Work, which he made in the year 1150, it seems that he was then an old man, having attended at the County Courts, both before and after he was knighted, about fifty years. He was the father of the Lord Chief Justice, who is known to have been born in 1130, a date which rather precludes the idea that his father was cotemporary with domesday, although he may have been a younger brother of Robert of domesday ; if so he must have been young at that period. It seems doubtful whether the father of Robert Glanville of domesday was not also named Hervey, for there was such a person living. In this case, assuming that they were brothers, Hervey of 1150 would also be Herveus fitz Hervie.

If therefore the Pipe Boll refers to the Glanvilles, we have no record of a Hervy Walter in Suffolk earlier than that of the marriage with the coheiress of Theobald Valoins.

But there is evidence of a connection with another county in a later document, which shews that the Walter family were settled at a much earlier period in Lancashire; three generations at least of the family held half a knight's fee in Amounderness. So much of the Domesday Book for this part of the county is unfortunately lost that it is impossible to state who held this property at that period, but the grandfather of Theobald Butler may almost have reached to that date, since he would be of the same generation as Hervey Glanville of 1150.

This entry states (the Book of Fiefs for the county of Lancaster) Theobald Walter held half a knight's fee, out of which Hervey, father of Hervey Walter, gave Orm Magnus four carucates of land in free marriage with his daughter Alice. Now if Mr. Glanville-Richards is correct, here is a clue to prove it. If Alice fitz Hervey was sister of the Lord Chief Justice, Orm Magnus would be his brother-in-law; now, unquestionably, the Chief Justice had a sister Alice, but she was the wife of one Geoffry de Lodnes, and there was a curious case in 1209 between Hubert de Randeston and this Geoffry de Lodnes concerning a carucate of land in Ratelesden, the result of which proves distinctly and clearly that this Alice de Lodnes was not Alice the wife of Orm, for the answer of the suit was that Robert de Creke, who had married the heiress of William de Glanville, ought to warrant the land, but of this land Theobald Walter was the heir and would have had to warrant it. [fn 5] Unless also the Chief Justice had two sisters of the name of Alice, it is clear that Alice fitz Hervey, who married Orm, was not his sister. Who was Hervey? Was he Hervey of Berri of the time of Domesday (but of that there is no proof), and if so, who was Hervey of Berri? Lord A. C. Hervey, in his very interesting paper upon the Herveys, seemed to identify him. with Herve of Leon or Gien. [fn 6]

Lord Hervey suggests that Hervey of Leon, who succeeded his brother Geoffry, Count of Chalons, in 1112, had a second son, and that he was named Hervey, a double contingency by no means improbable; but he also assumes, and he must have done so if he were the person, that for some other reason unknown, his brother named Hervey also assumed the name of Walter; Theobald Walter's father as well as hia brother was called Walter; and so probably was his father before him (?). Herve of Gien had a grandson named Walter; that is very curious, but it is of no avail in this inquiry, for he would be as young, if not younger, than Theobald Walter himself.

Lord Hervey appears to have searched in almost every direction for any one bearing the rather common Christian name of Hervey, but, curiously, he has omitted one very probable Hervey who seems to satisfy most of the requirements, and who very possibly is the true ancestor of Theobald Walter (if indeed Walter is not a true Clare), and that is Hervey of Gisors. Hervey of Gisors was the eldest son of Theobald Paganus, a family long Castellans of Gisors, but who were Bretons by race, and if not of the same blood as the Montmorencys, were closely allied to them. They were also Lords of Neuflee. Richard de Montmorency of Boutem married a daughter of this Theobald Pagan, the sister of Hervey. [fn 7]

Hervey the Breton, who was billed at the siege of St. Suzanne about 1083-4, was in all probability of this family.

Hervey, Bishop of Bangor and Ely, is styled by Ordericus Hervey the Breton. Lord Hervey has taken much trouble to shew that Hervey of Mount Morris, who aided Richard Strongbow in the conquest of Ireland, was not a Montmorency. It is, however, little to the purpose, but there seems no improbability in the fact; it is tolerably clear that Earl Strongbow's mother was a Montmorency, and her brother was of course one if she was of that race. Gerald Cambrensis asserts that Hervey was the Earl's uncle, a fact which he must have known, since he was himself so nearly related to all the Geraldines; but, curiously, Lord Hervey had omitted to observe that Gerald's father was himself called Barry or Berry, and was therefore probably related to Theobald Walter also, or at any rate to Hervey of Berri. Of course, it will be objected that this theory also leaves out of calculation the surname of Walter, and that the name of Theobald may be accounted for by his mother's family, and this is unanswerable. The suggestion is made, but it is not insisted upon; only it is suggested that if the matter is propounded it must not be forgotten that here are stronger probabilities than exist in Lord Hervey's theory, since here a person of the name is actually in existence.

To draw a positive conclusion from these premises may be a little hazardous, but it appears more than likely that the Chief Justice Glanville was either grandson or nephew of Robert de Glanville of Domesday, and that he was son or grandson of Richard de Beaufoy, Lord of Grandville, the son of Hamon aux Dents. It would be very interesting to prove this descent more strictly, and in all probability ample evidence exists in the ancient monastic chartularies of France, which, unlike our own, have been most fortunately preserved by the State at the period of the Great French Revolution.

THIS WORK HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES:-

Go to Index to Book	Go to Next Page
Go to Jay's Genes