Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 5.djvu/380

 312

NOTES AND QUERIES. f n s. v. APRIL 20, 1912,

utilized in Scott's view the name of this particular Apostle o<the Covenant, and con- strained it to take the shape that suited his purpose, THOMAS BAYNE.

THE FITZWIIXIAM FAMILY (11 S. v. 164). The " important evidence " adduced by L. M. R. seems to consist of a family tra- dition and pedigree, and the unsupported assertions of a French writer of the seven- teenth century and later English authors. But he presents an interesting variant of the ordinary legend.

According to the more usual version the family sprang from a William fitz Godric, who, in spite of his foreign name, was an Englishman, and cousin to Edward the Confessor. His son William (II.), am- bassador to the Duke of Normandy, turned traitor and fought for the Conqueror at Hastings. His son William (III. ) m. Eleanor, dau. and h. of Sir John Elmley of Sprot- borough, thus bringing that Yorkshire estate into the family. Their son William (IV.) sealed a grant with an armorial seal at the pre -heraldic date of 1117. His son William (V.) m. Ella, dau. and coh. of William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, by whom he was father of William (VI.). This wonderful pedigree was shattered by Hunter in 1828, Freeman in 1877, and Round hi 1901 (cp. 11 S. iii. 215). It was proved that the first five Williams had no existence ; that the same was true of the alleged Elmley and Warenne heiresses ; that the real founder of the family was William (VI.); that his father's name was not William, but Godric ; that this William fitz Godric obtained the Sprotborough estates by his marriage with a great heiress, Aubreye de Lizours, about 1170; and that the armorial seal belonged to their son William, the alleged date being a century wrong.

In the version adopted by L. M. R. the legendary William (I.) fitz Godric and his son William (II.), the traitor, disappear, and the latter is replaced at Hastings by a Norman, Geoffrey de Bee, who, however, takes over the coveted cousinship to the Confessor. (Geoffrey is said to have been a son of Rou, a younger son of Crispin, Lord of Bee, but I do not know if there is any proof of this.) Geoffrey de Bee is then identified with a namesake, Geoffrey the Marshal. This composite Geoffrey, who was old enough in 1066 to fight at Hastings, and was living in 1086, is then made a Fitzwilliam ancestor by identifying him with a Godric ; but L. M. R. does not make it clear whether this is the real Godric whose son married about

1170, or the mythical Godric whose grandson was fabled to fight at Hastings. The dates would be surprising in either case. Another point which L. M. R. fails to explain is what became of the composite Geoffrey's estates, and why they failed to descend to William fitz Godric.

If it be seriously desired to identify Geoffrey de Bee with Geoffrey the Marshal, the test lies in the descent of their estates, i.e., if in the next generation both pro- perties are found to be vested in the same heir, there would be a presumption of identity.

If we have only the unsupported assertion of Venasque that Gilbert Crispin, Lord of Bee, was Marshal in 1041, we may class the appointment with the important posts conferred by pedigree-makers on companions of the Conqueror. As to the suggestion that Geoffrey de Bee went in Gilbert's place in 1066, it may be pointed out that, according to Wace, William Crespin or Crispin, who is usually supposed to have been Gilbert's son, fought at Hastings ; but of course Wace, writing a century later, was liable to mistakes.

For the parentage of Turstin fitz Rou we have only contradictory assertions : Mr. Grimaldi says that his father Rou was a younger son of Crispin, Lord of Bee, whilst M. Le Pr<vost says that he had no con- nexion with that family. In the complete absence of proof it would seem to be a fair case for tossing up ! G. H. WHITE.

St. Cross, Harleston, Norfolk.

I think L. M. R. will find that there could not have been any connexion between the families of Fitzwilliam and Crispin in the way- he suggests ; and as for the Grimaldis, it is obvious fiction. The lozengy coat of arms did the mischief in this case, and one may only wonder the Norman Harcourts were not included, for they bore the same arms.

Anyhow, there can be no doubt whatever about the English origin of the great York- shire family of Fitzwilliam, nor about Godric 's name, nor his father's name Chetelbert.

In 1131 Godric fitz Chetelbert, who had been fined 4 marks of silver, paid to the Sheriff of Yorkshire on account 20 shillings, no doubt all he could scrape together. Godric fitz Ketelburn gave ironstone at Emley and fuel out of the wood there (for smelting on the spot) to the monks of By- land, confirmed by William fitz William, the donor's grandson (Burton's ' Mon. Ebor.,' p. 332). Emley was the ancient