Hugh de Maminot

  Noted events in his life were:

• Background Information.
From Some corrections and additions to the Complete Peerage: Volume 11: Say :

Round established a century ago that Alice was a daughter and coheir of John de Chesney [Genealogist, new series, vol. 18, p. 9 (1902), citing Dugdale's comments based on the cartulary of Coxford (Baronage, vol. 1, pp. 511, 614)]. John de Chesney was the son of Ralph de Chesney, and the grandson of another Ralph. The cartulary of Merton Priory records that Hugh Maminot gave the manor of Petham (Kent) to Ralph de Chesney in marriage with his daughter Alice [L. F. Salzman, Sussex Arch. Coll., vol. 65, pp. 21, 22 (1924), citing British Library Cotton MS Cleopatra C VI, no 69]. Chronologically, this would be John's father rather than his grandfather. (As Salzman points out, according to a Lewes manuscript, Ralph was predeceased by a wife named Emma - Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. 5, p. 14 (1817-30 edn) - so it is possible that the Merton cartulary is wrong in calling Hugh Maminot's daughter Alice - Keats-Rohan (Domesday Descendants, p. 369) apparently takes this view.)

• Background Information: From GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives. ¹⁹³
From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk>
Subject: Re: The wives of Geoffrey I and II de Say
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:02:22 -0000

Looking at a few more sources makes the evidence for the Maminot-Chesney-Say genealogy clearer and shows how the confusion about the identity of Geoffrey de Say's wife has propagated.

Dugdale, in his Baronage [vol. 1, p. 511 (1675)] wrote that Geoffrey de Say [I] married the sister and coheir of Walkeline Maminot, citing "Ex coll. R. Gl. S." [i.e. from the collections of Robert Glover, Somerset Herald]. In view of the evidence that Geoffrey's wife was in fact Alice de Chesney, this must really have been just a guess, based on the fact that the Maminot lands passed to the Says after Walkelin's death. The pipe rolls of the reign of Richard I call Geoffrey de Say the heir of Walkelin Maminot but do not specify the relationship [e.g. Pipe Roll Society, new series, vol. 5 (6 Richard I), p. 247].

What seems to be the correct version is stated in the cartulary of Merton Priory, which says that Hugh Maminot gave Petham in marriage with his daughter Aeliz to Ralf de Caisneto [L.F. Salzman, Sussex Arch. Coll. vol. 65, pp. 21, 22 (1924), citing Cotton MS Cleopatra C VI, no 69].

Hugh Maminot was the grandfather of the Walkelin Maminot who died c. 1190 and was succeeded by Geoffrey de Say. Alice's husband Ralph de Chesney is evidently the father of John de Chesney, whose daughter and coheir Alice married Geoffrey. The fact that John de Chesney had two daughters and coheirs, Alice the wife of Geoffrey de Say and Emma the wife of Michael Belet, seems to have been first established by J.H. Round [Genealogist, new series, vol. 18, p. 9 (1902)], on the basis of extracts from the cartulary of Coxford (alias Rudham) printed by Dugdale [Monasticon, vol. 1, pp. 511, 614]. The significance of this evidence had not been appreciated previously, partly because Dugdale rendered the Latin form of the surname as "Cheney" in one place and "Keynes" in another.

Apparently the Coxford cartulary is known only through Dugdale's extracts. Farrer [Honors and Knights' Fees, vol. 316] later cited Dugdale's manuscript notes from the cartulary [Dugdale MS 39, f. 103] which also mention a third daughter, from whom Alice of Sussex was descended.

Unfortunately the account of Say in the Complete Peerage has tried to preserve the old tradition embodied in Dugdale's Baronage, that Geoffrey de Say married a Maminot, as well as incorporating the evidence that he married Alice de Chesney, by placing these two women in successive generations, as wives of Geoffrey I and Geoffrey II. The author evidently knew of the evidence that Alice Maminot really married Ralph de Chesney, and made her marry Geoffrey I as Ralph's widow, compounding the confusion by referring to both women as Alice de Chesney. This had the side effect of making Geoffrey II marry his own niece, of the half blood. Ironically, the chart pedigree in the older CP article on Essex correctly followed Round's solution.

Dugdale's version has also been preserved in two versions in Keats-Rohan's "Domesday Descendants" (2002). In the entries on Maminot [p. 1027], Alice Maminot, said to be the aunt of Walkelin II Maminot in one place, and his sister in another, is again made to marry Geoffrey I de Say. But in the entry on John de Chesney [p. 368] Geoffrey's wife is correctly said to be John's daughter Alice. Meanwhile, in both the Chesney and Maminot entries, John de Chesney's father Ralph is correctly given a Maminot wife, the daughter of Hugh Maminot. But Keats-Rohan calls her Emma, not Alice as in the Merton cartulary. As Salzman remarks, there is a reference from Lewes Priory to Ralph having a wife called Emma (which Keats-Rohan cites). So perhaps Keats-Rohan assumed that these references are to the same woman, and corrected Alice to Emma in the belief that the Merton cartulary has her name wrong.

One final point. Sanders, English Baronies (p. 97), correctly says that Walkelin's heir was his aunt Alice, but makes her marry Geoffrey I de Say (without any mention of Ralph de Chesney this time). He also - like CP - gives Geoffrey a second wife Alice de Vere, which appears to be correct, but goes on to mention a third marriage "possibly [to] Alice, da. of Henry of Essex of Rayleigh".

This is something I haven't seen suggested before. If anyone can shed any light on it I'll be grateful. But it seems likely that it comes from confusion with Geoffrey's second wife Alice de Vere. The person intended by Alice, daughter of Henry of Essex, is presumably Alice, the wife of John, constable of Chester (d. 1190), ancestor of the Lacys. It's doubtful whether she was the daughter of Henry of Essex as some have thought, but there's no doubt that she was the daughter of Alice de Vere (an aunt of Geoffrey's 2nd wife) and that she also used her mother's surname of de Vere herself [CP vol. 10, p. 118]. So I'd guess that these two Alice de Veres have been confused by someone in the past, with the result that Geoffrey has been given yet another spurious wife.

Chris Phillips