Thomas Bradbury - Marmion Connection

The descent of William Bradbury from the Marmions of Checkenden in Oxon is adequately documented and apparently noncontroversial. It appears in Weis, Ancestral Roots, line N246A:27-42. The Checkenden Marmion line can be traced in the text of Rev. H. E. Salter's "The Boarstall Cartulary" Oxford: Oxford Historical Society, 1930, pp. 2-3. The pedigree of the NCheckenden Marmions appears in pedigree chart form in T. R. Gambier-Parry, "A Collection of Charters Relating to Goring," Oxford: Oxfordshire Record Society, 1931, p. lx. A scant listing by John B. Threlfall of this Marmion descent appears in TAG lvii (April, 1981), p. 98-99, "Thomas Bradbury Ancestry Table Additions." The line is greatly extended and amplified in two privately printed editions of Threlfall's book, "The Ancestry of Thomas Bradbury and his Wife Mary Perkins," 1988 and 1995.

MARMIONS OF CHECKENDEN:

1. Sir William Marmion, held Checkenden 1218, d. before 1221.
2. Geoffrey Marmion, b. circa 1198, d. before 1255.
3. William Marmion, b. circa 1229, d. 1266.
4. John Marmion, b. 1260, d. 1330/1331, m. circa 1273 Margery, dau. of Henry de Nottingham.
5. Thomas Marmion b. circa 1285/1290.
6. Alice Marmion b. ca 1320, d. before 1367, m. before 1353 William Harlyngrugge of Checkenden.

The main line of the Marmion family, who held Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire and Tamworth on the border of Warwickshire and Staffordshire, has been more difficult to sort out. This is primarily because there were four consecutive holders of the barony named "Robert" (as shown by Round, "Feudal England," pp. 156-157). This has made it difficult to firmly associate documents naming "Robert Marmion" with a particular generation. (Indeed, at least one of these Roberts named two of his sons Robert.)

Also some authors have ignored and others have diverged on the placement of a daughter of Gervase, Count of Rethel, who was married to one of the Robert Marmions.

Below is what I now have for the main Marmion line, with some attention paid to the reasons for the identification of the daughter of Gervase of Rethel (which comes from Moriarty). The rest of the line is consistent with an early work by C. F. Palmer, "The History of the Town and Castle of Tamworth," Tamworth: J. Thompson, 1845, and, so far as they go, with Salter and Gambier-Parry, mentioned above. My question about the connection between the Checkenden Marmions and the main line of Marmions, which I shall present below, however, does not hinge upon the correctness in detail of the latter half of the main line of Marmions.

MARMIONS OF SCRIVELSBY AND TAMWORTH:

1. Roger Marmion, alive during Lindsey Survey , 1115-1118, d. say 1130.
2. Robert I Marmion, b. circa 1109, slain 1143/1144, m. circa 1130/1133 Milicent, dau. of Gervase, Count of Rethel & Elizabeth de Namur. Milicent m. secondly Richard de Camville. Robert evicted the monks of Coventry and profaned their church.

C. T. Clay in an article, "Marmion," in The Complete Peerage, viii, 505-522,indicates that Milicent's parentage is unknown. He lists (?)Elizabeth, dau. of Gervase, Count of Rethel, as the wife of Robert II, son of Milicent (who appears below). Schwennicke (ed.) Europaische Stammtafeln, iii, 625 also lists Elisabeth de Rethel as wife of Robert de Marmion who d. 1181. ES cites Cockayne viii, 509, in connection with this table so this cannot be taken as an independent confirmation.

Moriarty in TAG xx (Jan, 1944), 255-256, points out that Alberic, Canon of Huyon-sur-Meuse states that Clarembald de Rosoy, who m. Elizabeth de Namur after the death of Gervase in 1124, in order to disinherit her, married the only daughter of Gervase out of the country to a certain noble of Normandy named Robert Marmion. But Alberic does not give the name of the daughter or specify which Robert Marmion was her husband. The daughter of Count Gervase was married about 1132/3, so chronologically it would more likely be to Robert I than to Robert II. The mother of Count Gervase of Rethel was Milicent of Montlhery. Thus Milicent, the wife of Robert I could have been named for her paternal grandmother.

Queen Adeliza of Louvain, wife of Henry I, gave part of Stanton, Co. Oxon, to Milicent, wife of Robert Marmion, "cognata mea." Stanton passed with Isabel, dau. of Milicent and Richard de Camville to her husband, Robert de Harcourt as her maritagium, and Stanton Harcourt has subsequently remained in that family. Queen Adeliza was a second cousin of the daughter of Gervase, both being descended from Albert III de Namur, d. 1102, & Ida of Saxony.

Moriarty concludes, in view of these arguments, that it was Robert I who married the daughter of the Count of Rethel, and that her name was Milicent. This corrects Palmer, "History of the Baronial Family of Marmion," 1875, Watson (The Genealogist, n.s., xiv, 70), Clay in "Complete Peerage" (vii, 509), and, of course, although not then published, ES, iii, 625.

3. Robert II Marmion, b. before 1133, d. circa 1181, m. Maud de Beauchamp, dau. of William de Beauchamp and Maud de Braose. About 1170/1175 Robert grants the church of Checkenden to the Priory of Coventry (Boarstall Cartulary No. 1). This Robert, son of Milicent and Robert, about 1175 to 1180 also grants a third of Checkenden to a William Marmion, and confirms to this William the gift of another third of Checkenden which he had earlier granted to William's brother, Geoffrey (Boarstall Cartularies 20 through 23).

4. Robert III Marmion, b. circa 1155/1156, d. 1218, m. firstly unknown, (mother of Robert IV, below), m. secondly Philippa. This Robert became presiding Justiciary of the barons-errant. He was Sheriff for Worcestershire in 1185, 1187 and 1190. Near the end of his life, circa 1210-1218, with his wife, Philippa, he gives land in Stoke and Checkenden to the monastery of Barbery (Boarstall Cartulary No. 25.).

5. Robert IV Marmion, d. circa 1241/1243, m. Juliane, dau. of Philip de Vassy.

6. Philip Marmion, d.s.p.m. circa 1291/1292, m. firstly Joan, dau. of Hugh de Killpeck, m. secondly Mary.

John Threlfall in his 1981 TAG article and in his book on the ancestry of Thomas Bradbury reports William Marmion who held Checkenden in 1218 to be the son of Robert II Marmion, son of Milicent, who granted the church at Checkenden to the Priory of Coventry. Since the daughter of Gervase de Rethel and Elisabeth de Namur is of undisputed Carolingian descent, if this linkage were correct Thomas Bradbury would be of Carolingian descent (whether Milicent were the "de Rethel" daughter as Moriarty argued and as I presented above, or an "Elizabeth de Rethel" m. Robert II as in CP and ES).

Neil Thompson in a critical review, "An Alleged Descent from Charlemagne for Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts: A Flawed Attempt," The Genealogist ix (Spring, 1988), 80-84, questions the link between William Marmion of Checkenden and Robert Marmion, son of Milicent de Rethel. In April 1994 in a review of Gary Boyd Roberts's book "The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants," TAG lxix, 125-126 Thompson criticizes Roberts for including several false descents one of which was the descent of Thomas Bradbury of Massachusetts (which appears on p. 461 of Roberts). In April of 1996 Stuart Baldwin approvingly cited Thompson's critical remarks about Roberts's book, including the example of Bradbury, in a post to soc.genealogy.medieval. In April of 1997 Baldwin posted an almost identical comment, again including Thompson's critical remarks and the example of the false Bradbury descent. (Of course, by the same token, Weis's "Ancestral Roots" which includes this descent, and the questioned linkage, in line 246A, should be comparably discredited. Indeed Weis (Sheppard?) adds a note at the end of the line indicating that he had read Thompson's critique and considered it adequately answered by Threlfall.)

There are two documents which Threlfall points to which, he argues, warrant the inference that William of Checkenden is a son of Robert II, son of Milicent. Both of these (unfortunately for the likes of me) are in medieval Latin.

The first of these is Boarstall Cartulary No. 8, written Jan. 25, 1339, in which the monks of Coventry, who had been given the church at Checkenden by Robert II, quitclaim the advowson of Checkenden to John Marmion (#4 on the list of Marmions of Checkenden).

"Be it known to all so now as in the future that we, brother Henry prior of the Cathedral church of Coventry, and the convent of the same place, by our unanimous consent, remit and quit claim for ourselves and our successors, to John Marmion, lord of Checkenden, his heirs and assigns, forever, all right and claim that we had or in any way will have had in the advowson of the church of Checkenden, which we had by the gift and conveyance of Robert Marmion a certain ancestor [antecessoris] of the aforesaid John, for atonement and good of the soul of the father of the said Robert, for irreparable damage and enormous injuries, which the same father of the said Robert so extensively and maliciously inflicted on our church and on our predecessors [predecessoribus], to have and to hold the aforesaid advowson, etc. forever. And so that the souls of the ancestors [antecessorum] of the said John should not, God forbid, incur either penalty or peril of annoyance and injury by whatever cause by our predecessors [predecessoribus] and our church and also us, as mentioned before, because of those matters hitherto mentioned, we, completely motivated by a pure and unanimous desire in consideration of charity, insofar as we are able, absolve for the present the souls of the ancestors [antecessorum] of the foresaid John, as well as his own, by our full chapter, from every constraint of guilt by which it can be reasonably believed that they were constrained on the foresaid occasion. In whose . . . etc. sealing, done in our chapter house at Coventry on the feast of the conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle the year of the lord 1300 thirty eight (i.e., 25 January 1338/9)."

The crux of Neil Thompson's doubts on the ancestry presented by Threlfall is, Thompson says, that the word, "antecessor," "has the double meaning, depending on context, of 'ancestor' or 'predecessor' [in title] and does not carry with it any specific blood relationship at all."

Threlfall responds that the monks twice in this deed use the word "predecessoribus" to refer to their own predecessors--the monks who were so abused by Robert I. They three time use the word "antecessorum" to refer to Robert II and/or Robert I's relation to John, and that it clearly means ancestor.

I would appreciate the opinions of those participants in this forum who have expertise and experience in the interpretation of these medieval Latin documents as to what seems to be the more appropriate interpretation.

I also notice (assuming that the translation presented by Threlfall is reasonably accurate in other respects) that these good monks have not only absolved the souls of John's "antecessorum" from every constraint of guilt due to the transgressions of Robert I, but they have also absolved John's own soul from guilt for that act. If John's only relation to Robert I was as a successor lord of Checkenden due to earlier property transfers, would his soul require absolution for the sins of Robert I?

The other document relevant to the purported linkage between William and Robert II is a record of a lawsuit which occurred about 1270. It is reported in the Great Britain Record Commission,"Placitorum in domo capitulari Westmonasteriensi asservatorum abbreviato," London: George Eyre and Andrew Strahan, 1811, p. 182. The text is considerably longer than that in the quitclaim considered above. Moreover it is in a form of Latin script with squiggles which couldn't possibly be transcribed in ASCII character code.

In this dispute about the advowson of Checkenden church Robert II who had made the grant to the Priory of Coventry is described as "antecessoris" of the underage heir, John Marmion.This raises the same question whether the term denotes an ancestor or may simply describe a succession in position as lord of Checkenden.

While I am not sanguine that a definitive judgement--"proven" or "disproven"--will necessarily result from consideration of these texts in this forum, I was not happy with the discrediting of the Bradbury line by dint of repetition of the claim that it had been disproven without any consideration of the evidence.

Alan B. Wilson

abwilson@uclink2.berkeley.edu

This evidence also applies to Bulkeley-Chetwode descendants of the Talbot-Cotton marriage. There is also a case in Wrottesley's Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls(which I have) which helps in this matter. I will copy it later. As for your latin goody, Make an appointment with Thomas Barnes PhD History and Law Departments. Office in Boalt Hall. His Dwinelle Hall Office is closed. I'll bet he would help. You may mention my name.

Good Luck

K Allen allenk@pacbell.net

From - Thu Apr 17 16:34:31 1997

Gen'l. Wrottesley's *Pedigrees from the Plea Rolls* p. 501

"Curia Regis Roll. No. 167. 56 Hen. 3. m. 19.

Oxon.---Adam de Stratton, the custos of the heir of William Marmion, sued Richard, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Prior of Coventry, for the next presentation to the church of Chakenden[Checkendon].

Robert Marmion, presented

temp. K.John.

Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir,

living 6 H. 3.

William

The heir of William, under age.

The defendants pleaded that Robert Marmion, the ancestor pf the heir, had granted the advowson to the Priory of Coventry, and Geoffrey, the grandfather of the heir, had acknowledged the right of the Prior by a Fine levied in 6 H. 3. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE HEIR WAS SON OF WILLIAM.[My emphasis added.]"

Geoffrey Marmion is father of William Marmion. If Geoffrey Marmion is a grandfather (as is stated) of the heir of William, the heir of William must either be a son or nephew of William. Then if Robert II Marmion is an ancestor of the heir of William (as is stated), he is almost certainly an ancestor of Geoffrey Marmion. (One would have to imagine an entirely unknown maternal line of the heir leading back to Robert for this not to be true.) Therefore the entire Checkenden line most probably descends from Robert II--as Threlfall postulated--including John, even if he is not the heir referred to in the trial.

I do not quite understand what the vertical lines between individuals are supposed to represent. Is that clear in Wrottesley? Is this an inferred pedigree as the title suggests?