Person:Maud Unknown (99)

Parentage

The following post-em by Curt Hofemann, [email protected] clears up the reason why Maud was mistaken for a daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville by MCS:

Maud. Widow of Piers de Lutegareshale. Mother of Geoffrey fitz Piers earl of Essex [Ref: CP V:116 Table]

Maud was not a de Mandeville. This error has been discussed several times on Gen-Medieval:

Maud was not intended by this to be represented as Geoffrey's daughter, but this appears to be the genesis of this mistaken affiliation. As has been pointed out, it is clear that Geoffrey Fitz Piers came to hold Mandeville land, as well as the Earldom of Essex, through his wife, who was granddaughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville's sister. This is best seen by the fact that the land and titles descended to Bohun, to the exclusion of Geoffrey's son and male heir, John Fitz Geoffrey, son by a second wife. So, no Mandeville land can be shown to have been held by Piers, or by Geoffrey prior to his marriage; no Mandeville land descended to Geoffrey's (and hence Maud's) heir male; no document has been brought forward which claims Maud, wife of Piers, was a Mandeville; no daughter or sister of an Earl of Essex would have been allowed to marry such a lowly knight as Piers. No, Maud was not a Mandeville. [Ref: TAF 3 Apr 1998]

Maud de Mandeville was not daughter of Geoffrey and Rohese. This comes from a misreading of the chart of Essex in CP. She is placed at the same level as Geoffrey's children, but there is no line connecting her with Geoffrey. Likewise, Piers was a local forester, and never would have been given the daughter of someone of Geoffrey's status. Even if it were true, her children would have been immediately elevated in status, but instead, Geoffrey Fitz Piers had to work his way up through the king's household service. He was a "new man", and not the grandson of an Earl. [Ref: TAF 19 Apr 1998]

TAF = Todd A. Farmerie

Also, Bill Marshall <[email protected]>, someone I respect as a very thorough reseacher, lists on WorldConnect at surname=A

The mother of Geoffrey Fitz Piers was Maud, wife of Piers de Lutegareshale. As far as I have been able to determine, there was never any Maud de Mandeville at this point in the Mandeville pedigree until someone misread CP. I followed back the references cited by Weis/Sheppard Magna Carta Sureties (later repeated in AR7) and they all either say nothing of the sort, or else lead right to the CP Essex article. Nowhere in the text does it mention a Maud other than simply as wife of Piers, and there it does not call her Maud de Mandeville nor provide any evidence of a connection. In the associated chart, (and here's the rub) Piers, Maud, and her second husband are placed under the horizontal line which unites the children of Geoffrey de Mandeville. This would, at first glance, appear to show Maud as Geoffrey's daughter (this applies to Maud, but not Piers or his successor, because Maud is not given a surname). However, a closer look reveals that there is no vertical line dropping down from the horizontal to connect her with Geoffrey: Geoffrey de Mandeville.

Regards, Curt

Note: I have now seen the chart on CP V:116, and it certainly looks at first glance as if Maud is implied to be daughter of Geofrey de Mandeville, but on closer inspection there is no vertical line.

Disputed Lineages

Maud has been variously attributed to both Geoffrey Mandeville and Rohese Vere and to Geoffrey Fitz Peter and Beatrice Say. The former is disputed thoroughly above. The latter is not consistent with what is known of the Maud that was born to that family. As such, we can conclude nothing about her parents at present.

1. ↑ Cokayne, George Edward, and Vicary Gibbs; et al. The complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct, or dormant [2nd ed.]. (London: St. Catherine Press, 1910-59)
   Vol 5, p. 122; V:116 chart.
2. ↑ Weis, Frederick Lewis; William R. Beall; and Walter Lee Sheppard. The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215: the barons named in the Magna Charta, 1215, and some of their descendants who settled in America during the early colonial years. (Baltimore [Maryland]: Genealogical Pub. Co., c1999)
   159-2.

   Maud de Mandeville [daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville by Rohese de Vere]; married (1) Piers de Lutegareshale; married (2) Hugh de Boclande, living 1176.

   Note: I have reversed the order of marriage which MCS has, because it certainly makes more sense according to the birthdates of the children. Both of Maud's husbands lived to be fairly old, making it very difficult, even doubtful, if she married both. I note that Ancestral Roots did not name her Maud de Mandeville (I think that the citation implies a prior marriage to someone from Costow, Wiltshire (possibly Hugh de Boclande?)), and that, according to Burke's Peerage, Geoffrey Fitz Piers did not use his mother's relationship to claim the Earldom of Essex. He used his wife, Beatrice de Say's descendancy from Beatrice de Mandeville sister of Geoffrey de Mandeville, 1st Earl of Essex. Thus, even though MCS clearly states her as Maud de Mandeville, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville, I have my doubts.

3. ↑ Weis, Frederick Lewis; Walter Lee Sheppard; and David Faris. Ancestral roots of certain American colonists, who came to America before 1700: the lineage of Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Malcolm of Scotland, Robert the Strong, and some of their descendants. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Pub. Co., 7th Edition c1992)
   246b-27.

   Maud [mother of Geoffrey Fitz Peter (or Piers), wife of Piers de Lutegareshale], Lady of Costow, co. Wilts.

4.   Geoffrey Fitz Peter, 1st Earl of Essex, in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.

   Spouses m1. Beatrice de Say, daughter of William de Say... Children of Beatrice. Note that his sons by this marriage took the de Mandeville surname.....Maud Fitzgeoffrey, who married Henry de Bohun, 1st Earl of Hereford.