CHAPTER VI
Reign of Henry III. A.D. 1216 to A.D. 1272.
HENRY III succeeded his father hi all his titles and estates, at the
early age of nine years. He was proclaimed king in the presence of
William, earl marshal and earl of Pembroke, &c., the pope's legate, and
others. The said William, earl marshal; had this command of the armies
at the death of John, and was now appointed to the high and dignified
office of protector of the King, and director of the affairs of the
kingdom; which power, says Hume, " could not have been entrusted into
more able and, more faithful hands." He renewed the great charter
granted by John, and issued a proclamation addressed to the nobility,
gentry, and people in general, calling on them to be true and faithful
to their king, Henry III. ; which they the more readily acceded to, as
Louis, prince of France, (a rival power) was at this time
excommunicated, and began to decline much in authority. The appeal of
the Earl had much influence with the barons; enforced, as it was, by the
character of honour and constancy which he had' ever supported.
Herlewin, bishop of Leighlin, died in 1216, or 12J7, according to the
annals of St. Mary's abbey, hear Dublin; and was interred in the
conventual church of Dunbrothy, a great part of which he had built.
He was succeeded by Richard, by some called Robert Fleming, who was
consecrated bishop of this see in the year 1217. He had a severe contest
with the prior of Conall for some lands and tithes belonging to his
bishopric, in Leix, now a part of the Queen's county. The suit, however,
was terminated by composition; the bishop resigned the lands and tithes
to the prior, receiving an annual pension of ten marks, payable to him
and his successors at Leighlin.
A.D. 1219. On the 16th of March, in this year, William, Earl Marshal,
&c., departed this life, and was buried in the new Temple at London. He
played a very distinguished part during the reigns of Richard I., John,
and Henry III; and is much lauded by historians for his many virtues.
His loyalty and fidelity to his royal masters, merit our highest
eulogium; and Henry III was clearly indebted to him for the stability of
his" throne during the early part of his reign. The principles upon
which he acted, on the death of John, are thus set forth by Hume: "This
nobleman, who had maintained his loyalty unshaken to John during the
lowest fortune of that monarch, determined to support the authority of
the infant prince; nor was he dismayed at the number and violence of his
enemies." Which statement is fully supported by the subsequent career of
this eminent individual? By his wife Isabel, (who died anno 1221, and
was buried at Tintern abbey in Wales,) he had five sons and five
daughters.
First, William married Eleanor, sister of Henry III. ; died the 6th
of April, 1231, and was buried in the choir of the Friars Preachers, at
Kilkenny. Second, Richard, who was mortally wounded at a battle on the
Curragh of Kildare, against the O'Connors and others, he died on the
12th of April, 1234; not without just grounds for the opinion that his
death was caused by members of his own party. In fact, to atone for the
death of Richard, Maurice Fitz-Gerald (then lord justice) found it
necessary to enter into an explanation of his conduct before the king;
offering to erect and liberally endow an abbey, in which to provide for
the repetition of prayers for the repose of Earl Richard's soul.
Fitz-Gerald was dismissed from the justiceships; but, through the
mediation of the nobility, succeeded in appeasing the wrath of Gilbert,
the third son, who succeeded his brother Richard in his titles and
estates. He married Margaret, daughter of William king of Scotland, in
1235; and died, in consequence of a fall from his horse, at a
tournament, on the 28th of March 1242. Walter, the fourth son,
succeeded. He had some difficulty in obtaining the king's permission to
enjoy the possessions of the family; as he had suggested and directed
the tournament at which his brother was killed. Walter died at Godrike
castle near Monmouth, and was buried at Tintern, A.D. 1245. Anselm, the
fifth son of Earl Marshal, became possessor of the patrimony on the
death of Walter.
He had married Matilda, or Maud, daughter of the earl of Hertford,
who survived him; but in consequence of Anselm having neglected doing
homage to the king, previously to his taking possession of his estate,
she was debarred from the benefit of dowry.
Allusion is thus specially made to the case, in the English statutes:
" When any dieth and his heir entereth into the land, that his ancestors
held of the king, the day that he dieth, before he hath done homage to
the king, and received seizin of the king, he shall give no freehold
thereby ; and if he died seized during that time, his wife shall not be
endowed of the same land, as came late in use, by Maud, the daughter of
the earl of Hertford, wife of Anselm, the marshal. Who after the death
of Walter, marshal of England, his brother, took his seizin of the manor
and castle of Strogul, (Chepstow), and died in the same castle, before
he had entered by the king, and before he had done homage unto him;
whereupon it was agreed, that his wife should not be endowed, because
that her husband had not entered by the king, but rather by
trusion."Anselm died on the same month with his predecessor Walter; none
of 4he brothers leaving issue.
Previously to noticing the daughters of William, earl marshal and of
Pembroke, we shall state some further particulars which have reached us
relative to his male heirs.
William, the eldest son, was a person of considerable distinction in
his time, and enjoys a prominent place in the annals of his country. On
his accession to the possessions of his father, the Bishop of Ferns, (a
Cistercian monk), made a formal complaint to the king, that William, the
late earl, had forcibly taken possession of two manors, or lordships,
belonging to his church, and held them by the sword. Having frequently
remonstrated with the earl, but to no purpose, the bishop thundered
against him the sentence of excommunication; which the earl completely
despised, and alleged his determination to retain the lordships by the
law of arms.
On which declaration, one Melckeria, we are told, Wrote the following
distich, personating the Earl Marshal.
Sunt Guern Satturuam Sibi Sensit Hibernia, solem ' Anglia Mercurium
Normania Galbia Martem.
Thus anciently Englished:
I am whom Ireland Saturn night, and England So me calls, Amidst the
Normans Mercury, and Mars among the Gauls.
But the Satits had as little effect on the Earl, as the threats of
his opponents, and he died in fill possession of the disputed territory;
which consequently descended to his son William, Earl Marshal, and the
younger. On the death of the Earl, the bishop journeyed to London, and,
as already stated, laid his case before Henry; entreating him, in regard
to the Earl’s soul, to use his sovereign authority, and issue his
Princely mandate for the restoration of the two manors; adding, that on
their: delivery to him, the earl might though dead, obtain the benefit
of absolution. The king, then about twelve years of age),was moved-at
this appeal of the Bishops; and desire that he would repair to the
earl's tomb, at the Temple, and absolve him; when he would endeavour to
have the matter satisfactorily adjusted. The 'king, accompanied by the
prelate proceeded to the tomb 'of Earl Marshal , when the latter in a
loud voice delivered himself as follows “O William that here lieth
interred and wrapped in the bonds of excommunication, if the King which
thou hast injuriously taken away from my church be restored by the king,
or by thine heir, or by some thine kindred or friends, with competent
satisfaction, I absolve thee ; otherwise I do ratify the said sentence,
that thou being ever wrapped in thy sins, 'may remain damned in hell."
The king-was much incensed at this language of the bishop, and sharply
reproached him for his immoderate rigour. The prelate answered, "My lord
and dread sovereign, marvel not, 'though ‘I be out of: patience, for be
hath spoiled my church to his great commodity." The king: then privately
conferred with William, the eldest son of: the 'deceased Earl, and some
'of his brethren, and 'urgently recommended them to- restore the manors
unjustly 'obtained, and thereby deliver their father's soul. To which
William replied:' '"I do not believe, neither is it to be credited, that
my father 'took them injuriously, for that which is gotten by-the sword,
'may lawfully be enjoyed; for if that old and doting bishop -hath 'given
-a wrong sentence, let the curse light upon his own pate. I will not
weaken my estate, nor diminish the inheritance wherewith I am intrusted,
my father died seized of, and I have tightly entered." To these words
all the brothers yielded their concurrence. The king being then young,
and under the guardianship of a tutor, was not disposed to severity
against a personage of so 'much Consequence as the Earl; who was,
moreover, the son of his best friend. When the bishop perceived that his
suit was fruitless, and observed, the favour shown to the sons of the
late earl, he .was greatly excited, and, turning to the King, confirmed
his malediction in these words, which .he spoke aloud: " What I 'have
'said, I have said ; what 1 have written, I have written ; never to be
blotted out." He then departed; prophesying all manner of ill success to
earl William and his brothers.
In allusion to this affair, Jeoffry Keating says: "Out of five sons
not one survived to enjoy the cursed acquisitions of the father, who
died childless." In these few words there is much of unbecoming acerbity
of language, and much of untruth; for the five sons of the earl did
survive and enjoy his estates, and so for was he from dying childless,
that he had ten children on his decease; through the females of which,
his possessions were handed down to succeeding generations. The priest
might be excused for a little violence in reference to the conduct of
the earl, who certainly does not appear to have been a very bigoted
adherent of the church; but nothing can excuse a writer, and
particularly a reverend doctor of divinity, for a barefaced deviation
from truth.
In the year 1221, William, Earl Marshal, had great contests with Hugh
de Lacy of Meath, in which the latter district' suffered great
detriment. However, in 1224, when the earl was Lord Justice, Lacy was
compelled to submission, and at the end of the year was pardoned. ||
Soon after the arrival of Geoffry de Marisco as Lord justice, it is
probable that the earl marshal repaired to England, to render an account
of his administration: the Irish took immediate advantage of the absence
of so formidable an opponent, and raised an army of 20,000 men, who,
however, were speedily defeated by De Lacy. A.D. 1239. This year king
Henry celebrated Christmas at Winchester, with the usual festivity. The
servants of Gilbert, (at this time sari marshal), were with their master
in attendance on the occasion; and conceived that they had received
offence, in consequence of being prevented from entering the king's
court with their tipstaves. The earl complained to the king, from whom
he unexpectedly received a short and unsatisfactory answer; which
displeased him so much, that he immediately left the court, and perhaps
never returned to it.
We now proceed to the co-heiresses of William, Earl Marshal; and as
full information on the subject must be interesting and desirable, we
shall give the accounts of four different authorities on the subject;
pointing out where discrepancies exist. 1. The eldest daughter Maud
married Hugh, Earl of Norfolk William, Earl of Warren, and Walter, Lord
Dunstanvil.
Maud was married to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, who was Earl Marshal
of England in right of his wife: by whom he had Ralph Bigod, father of
John Bigod, the son of the lady Bertha- Furnival; and Isabel Lacy, wife
to John Lord Fitz-Geffery, by whom after the death of Hugh Bigod, Earl
of Norfolk, she had John de Waren, Earl of Surrey, and his sister
Elizabeth d' Albany, countess of Arundell.
The county of Carlow was alloted to the eldest. Palatinate of Carlow.
— Hugh le Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, earl marshal and lord of Carlow, jure
uroris, married Maud, daughter and heir, lady of Carlow. — William
Plantagenet, Earl Warren and Surrey was her second husband. Walter, lord
Dunstanville, third husband, brother to Alan, ancestor to the present
lord Dunstanville. Issue by first husband, — Roger le Bigod, earl of
Norfolk, lord of Carlow, and marshal of England, who conveyed Carlow to
the crown. The county of Carlow and Marshalship of England were
afterwards granted by king Edward I. to Thomas de Brotherton, (first son
by his second wife), from whom the lordship and county of Carlow
descended through the families of Howard, dukes of Norfolk, and lord of
Carlow and Berkeley, who forfeited by reason of he statute of
absentees.-— Ralph Bigod, third son, who had issue Isabel. — John Fitz-Geffery,
lord of Berkimmstead, married Isabel, from whom John Fitz-John Fitz-Geffery,
lord of Berkhamstead. His issue; Richard, John, Maud, first daughter and
coheir, wife of Gerard, lord Furnival. Isabel, wife of Robert, lord
Vispont of Westmoreland. Rolline, wife of Walter, earl of Ulster. Joan,
wife of Theobald, lord Butler of Ireland. — Thomas, lord Furnival, issue
of Maud, married Elizabeth, daughter of Peter de Montfort. Thomas, lord
Furnival, married Joan, daughter and coheir of Theobald, Lord Verdon. —
William, Lord Furnival, married Tiomasine daughter of Sir Dagworth. —
Joan, daughter and', heir of lady Furnival, married Sir Thomas Neville,
Lord Furmval, jure uxoris. — Maud, daughter and coheir, married Sir John
Talbjot, created earl of Shrewsbury and Waterford, lord of Wexford,
juvrt uxoris. Issue by second husband. — William, Earl Warren and
Surrey, from whom the Duke of Norfolk descends.
It will be seen, that the statement of Mills, and the last, agreed
precisely as to the connections of Matilda, or Maud, the eldest daughter
of William, earl marshal. 2. The second daughter of William, earl
marshal, named Joan', married Warren, lord Montchensy, the richest baron
in England. Joan Marshal (whom Camden, or rather the annalist from whom
he copies, incorrectly styles the fourth sister) was married to the lord
Guarin da Mountchensey, and had issue, Joan de Valens.*
The county of Wexford was alloted to the second. Joan, second
daughter and co-heir of William de Hampstead. She was lady of Wexford.
Married Warine, lord Montchensey, and Lord of Wexford juvrt uxoris. —
Joan, daughter and sole heir, lady of Wexford, married William de
Valence, earl of Pembroke, half brother to king Henry III., lord of
Wexford, juvrt uxoris. Issue: Aymer, earl of Pembroke, died without
issue. Isabella, wife of John, lord Hastings of Abergavenny, to whom she
brought Wexford as her share. — Agnes, wife of Maurice Fitz-Gerald, to
whom she brought Geshill and Ophaly, and was ancestor to the Earls of
Kildare and dukes of Leinster. She married, secondly, Hugh de Baliol,
brother to John, king of Scotland, and thirdly, John de Avernes.—Joan,
wife of John de Comyn of Badenoch, to whom she brought Gainsborough. —
John Hastings, lord of Abergavenny and Wexford, died 12th Edward II.,
married Joan, daughter and heir of Thomas de Leybourne, lord Of Eltham.
Laurence Hastings, lord of Abergavenny and Wexford, created Earl of
Pembroke, 13th October, 13, Edward III., 1348 ; married Agnes, daughter
of Roger Mortimer, earl of March, died 42 Edward III. — John Hastings,
earl of Pembroke, lord of Abergavenny and Wexford, married Anne daughter
of Sir Walter Manning. Issue, John Hastings, who died without issue. —
Elizabeth Hastings, daughter of the above John, lord Hastings and
Issabella, married Roger, lord Grey of Ruthyn. From whom, Reginald, lord
Grey, lord of Wexford, who married Mary, daughter of John, lord Strange
of Blackmore. — Reginald, lord Grey of Ruthyn, and lord of Wexford,
married Joan, daughter of William, lord Ashley Sir John Grey, K.G. died
during the life of his father; married Constance, daughter of John
Holland, duke of Exeter. —Edmond, lord Grey de Ruthyn, Hastings and
Wexford eldest son and heir, created earl of Kent, whose descendant
still enjoys the title of baroness Grey of Ruthyn. He married Katharine,
daughter of Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland. 3. The third daughter,
Isabella, married Gilbert, earl of Gloucester and afterwards Richard,
earl of Cornwall, king of the Romans. Isabel was married to Gilbert
Clare, earl of Gloucester; she had Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester,
and the lady Anise, countess of Averna, who was mother of Isabel, the
mother of lord Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick, in Scotland, afterwards
king of that nation.
The county of Kilkenny was allotted to the third sister. If Isabella,
third daughter and co-heir of William de Hampstead, had Kilkenny as her
share. Married first, Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertfort;
secondly. Richard Plantagenet, earl of Cornwall, king of the Romans, and
second son of king John, by whom she had no issue. — Issue by first
husband: Richard de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hertfort, lord of
Kilkenny, married Maud, daughter of John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln. —
Gilbert, earl of Gloucester and Hertfort, died 1295. Married Joan,
princess of England, daughter of king Edward I. called Joan of Acre.
Issue: 1, Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, slain at Bannockburn,
1814, without issue. He married Joan, sister of John de Burgh, son of
Richard, earl of Ulster. —2, Elizabeth, eldest sister and co-heir,
married Theobald de Verdon, who got the honour of Clare; issue: Joan,
daughter and co-heir, wife of Thomas, lord Furnival, from whom the
Talbots, earls of Shrewsbury and lord of Wexford.—3, Margaret, wife of
Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall, secondly of Hugh de Audley, earl of
Gloucester, jure uxoris. 4 Elinor, wife of Hugh le Despenser, the
younger, who had Kilkenny with her, and sold it to Edmond, earl of
Carrick, ancestor to the Marquis of Ormonde.*
4. Sibilla, the fourth daughter of the earl marshal, married William,
earl Ferrers and Darby.Sybil, countess of Ferrars, bad issue, seven
daughters; the eldest, called Agnes Vescie, mother of lord John and.
lord William Vescie; the second, Isabel Basset; the third, Joan Mohun,
wife to lord John Mohun, son of lord Reginald; the fourth, Sybil Mohun,
wife to lord Francis Mohun, lord of Midhurst; the fifth, Elenor Vaus,
wife to the earl of Winchester; the sixth, Agas Mortimer, wife to lord
Hugh Mortimer; the seventh, Maud hymo, lady of Carbry.
The county of Kildare was given to the fourth daughter of the earl.
Sibilla, fourth daughter and co-heir of William de Hampsted, whose share
of Leinster was Kildare, married William de Ferrars, earl of Derby.
Issue : Agnes, wife of William de Vesey, lord of Kildare, juvrt uxoris.
5. The fifth and youngest daughter, Eva, married William de Breos, lord
of Brecknock.From Eva de Breoa, descended Maud, the mother of lord
Edmond Mortimer, mother of the lady Eva de Cauntelow, mother of the lady
Milsoud de Mohun, who was mother to lady Eleanor, mother to the earl of
Hereford. The palatinate of Leix, now part of the Queen's county, was
alloted to the fifth. Eva, fifth daughter and co-heir. Her share was
Leix or Dunmore in Ossory. She married William de Braose, lord of
Brecknock and Leix, juvrt uxoris. — Issue: Maud, daughter and heir: from
this lady the royal families of Great Britain, France, Prussia,
Denmark, the Netherlands, Sardinia, Savaria, Saxony, and also the
imperial house of Austria, descend. She married Roger Mortimer, lord of
Wigmore and of Leix, juvrt uxoris.* Partition was made between the five
co-heiresses at Woodstock, on the 3rd of May, and thirty-first year of
the reign of Henry III It will berecollected, that these noble
personages were descendants of Dermot MacMorrough, last king of
Leinster; who had, also, numerous and distinguished posterity through
his illegitimate son, Donnell; of which, the particulars will be found
in another part of this work. A.D. 1226. Richard Fleming, bishop of
Leighlin, died this year, having governed the see about nine years.
He was succeeded in 1227, by William, archdeacon of Leighlin, who
being elected bishop, obtained the royal assent on the 14th of November;
yet not without many applications and considerable delay, in consequence
of the election having taken place without the king's previous license.
However, the informality was at length excused, on account of the high
character of the bishop elect; but the chapter and clergy were obliged
to sue out letters patent, certifying that such a conge d'elire had
issued, lest at any future time the irregularity might be prejudicial to
the prerogatives of the king or his successors. The manner of this
election, (notwithstanding the endeavours made to remedy its first
illegality), afterwards proved a bad example to many chapters in the
kingdom, who, in several cases, proceeded to elect in the first
instance, and afterwards sought the necessary approval. Thus showing the
dangerous consequences attendant on the permission of undue
encroachments. In 1246, the bishop granted thirty days' indulgence to
such as would contribute to the building of St. Paul's, London. He died
in 1251, (having held the Episcopal office twenty-three years and was
buried in his own church.
By virtue of a conge d'elire from the king, one Thomas was elected by
the chapter on the 22nd of April, 1252 and the same year was consecrated
bishop. He was the first prelate of this see who bestowed prebends on
his canons.
It appears that Idrone, last granted to Raymond le Gross, changed
owner again in this reign; Raymond resting satisfied probably with very
extensive grants in other parts of the country; since enjoyed by his
descendants the ancient families of Fitz-Maurice and Grace. Maud,
countess of Norfolk, or perhaps her husband, granted the barony of
Idrone by certain services in fee to the family of Carew.|| It seems,
however, that the MacMorroughs, descendants of Donnell Kavanagh,
remained by sufferance, and under tribute, in the same district.
Towards the conclusion of the present reign, one of the Carews
founded a monastery for Carmelites, or White Friars, near the Black
Castle, on the east bank of the river Barrow, at Leighlin-bridge. It was
dedicated to the Virgin Mary. King Henry III. Died at London, on the
16th of November, 1272; after a protracted reign of fifty-six years.
("Spelling are as seen in the book")
CHAPTER VII
- The information contained in these
pages is provided solely for the purpose of sharing with
others researching their ancestors in Ireland.
- © 2001 reland Genealogy Projects,
IGP TM By
Pre-emptive Copyright - All rights reserved
Back to the top