Généalogie and Heritage

Source: AGNES in ROBERT DE BRUS I : FOUNDER OF THE FAMILY -The Brus family in England and Scotland 1100-c.1290. Blakely, Ruth Margaret

Description

Type	Valeur
Titre	AGNES in ROBERT DE BRUS I : FOUNDER OF THE FAMILY -The Brus family in England and Scotland 1100-c.1290. Blakely, Ruth Margaret

Médias

URL

Notes


BEGINNING ON PAGE 26 Little is known about the wife of the first Robert de Brus except that her name was Agnes, that she was linked with her husband in his grants to foundations at Guisborough, York and Whitby, and that she made a gift to Guisborough priory in her own right, of the manor of Carlton by Camblesforth. 32 This last grant has given rise to the theory that Agnes was the daughter of a Payne!, an idea which Farrer rightly rejected. Although Carlton was soke of the Paynel manor of Drax, it had been held by the king in1086, formed part of the original Brus fief and was later held by Paynel of Brus not the other way round. It is therefore more likely that Carlton had been gifted to Agnes by her husband as part of her dower. 33 Farrer's own initial suggestion was that Agnes was daughter of Geoffrey Bainard, a sheriff of Yorkshire who briefly held the manor of Burton [Agnes] in the time of Rufus. Although King supports this theory, Farrer himself ultimately rejected it, with good reason. Like Carlton, Burton [Agnes] was part of the initial Brus fief, and two of its berewicks were added in the exchange of 1103 as a direct grant from the king. In 1086 the manor had been held by the king and let out to farm, so despite Geoffrey Bainard granting the church and some land there to St Mary's, York, he may only have held it temporarily or by virtue of his office. Furthermore, Agnes is not named at all in her husband's own grant of the church of Burton [Agnes] to York, making it unlikely that she was Geoffrey's heir. Finally, theappellation 'Agnes' was not used until the mid-thirteenth century and may well have come from Agnes d'Aumale, wife of Adam de Brus I•34 In contrast to these unsubstantiated suggestions for the descent of Robert's wife, a few clues can be found from charter evidence which give tentative support for Farrer's subsequent theory, endorsed by Clay, that she was a Surdeval heiress. 35 In the foundation grant to Guisborough priory, which contained a large amount of Mortain/Surdeval land, not only is Agnes's namelinked with her husband's, but their son, Adam, is designated as 'our' heir, suggesting that some of the lands were of her inheritance. The same meaning is implicit in the wording of an entry in the chartulary of St Mary's, York, regarding the grant of amill and land in Sunderlandwick, made by Robert, his wife and their heirs. Sunderlandwick, a manor near Driffield in the East Riding, may well have been in Surdeval's hands after Gospatric had forfeited it and come to Brus as his wife's maritagium.36 In addition to these clues about Agnes herself, it has been noted that Robert de Brus I witnessed Henry I's confirmation of a grant by the count of Mortain to Marmoutier before 1104, in association with Ralph Paynel. This would suggest that both of them already had an interest in the count's lands through marriage to his tenant's daughters and possible heirs. 37 By whatever means the Mortain/Surdeval lands passed to Robert de Brus, they must have been a welcome and valuable addition to his barony. They included not only the manor of Skelton, where the castle to which he later transferred his caput may already have existed, but also the two manors in Guisborough which provided the site and major part of his endowment for Guisborough priory and must therefore,like his Chester lands, have come to him before c.1119.38 The Brus lordship, then, was a composite creation, and the fief as recorded in Domesday is far from the whole story. Only when the tenancies from Chester and the former Mortain lands are taken into account can its true value be assessed, and it was these additions which consolidated Robert's power within the North Riding. Despite the presence of other powerful families in the region, by c.1120 Robert de Brus had become the dominant baron in Cleveland, and his estates in the Langbaurgh wapentake totalled more than those of the other four major tenants-in-chief put together. 39 He effectively controlled the south bank of the River Tees from Hornby, some seven miles above Yarm, to the sea; and together with the Percys of Topcliffe, he held much of the coast-line running south from its estuary as far as Runswick Bay. His inland holdings included not only Eskdale, which gave him authority over most of the northern flank of the Cleveland hills, but also the majority of the manors which lay between those hills and the valley of the Tees. So that from the distinctive height of Roseberry Topping (then called Osenburgh) Robert de Brus was lord of almost all that the eye can see.4° Having established in Cleveland a tenant-in-chief whom he clearly trusted, it was a logical move for Henry I to extend the area of Brus's authority into the lands immediately north of the Tees, into the district of Hartness. Robert thereby became responsible for the defence of the whole estuary of the Tees, together with a further stretch of coast which included the sandy beaches and bay of St Hilda's Isle where Hartlepool was later established. Hartness lay within the wapentake of Sadberge, a surviving remnant of the earldom of Northumbria, an outpost of royal jurisdiction surrounded by Durham episcopal lands, which later caused problems for Robert's descendants when it became incorporated into the bishop's administration. 41 The region had suffered as much as, if not more than, Yorkshire in the early years of the Norman era, both from the rebellion of its earls and the associated incursions of the Scots, which lasted well into the reign of Rufus. Norman administration had barely touched the region. Until 1100 few Norman baronies had been created north of the Tees. Thus the establishment of Robert de Brus in Hartness should be seen in the context of Henry I's continuing extension of royal authority.42 Since the two churches of the district at Hart and Stranton (now West Hartlepool) were included in Brus's foundation grant to Guisborough priory, he had clearly been enfeoffed with Hartness before c.1119 and therefore in conjunction with his Cleveland lands. 43 Together they form a remarkably cohesive district, bounded on the north by the deep gorge of the Eden and on the south by the steep escarpment of the Cleveland hills, with the basin of the Tees at its centre. From the (comparative) heights of Hartness above the manors of Hart and Elwick, the Cleveland hills are clearly visible, and both viewpoints provide a commanding prospect of the river plain. With the addition of his view of the coast-line from the ramparts of Skelton castle, Robert de Brus was well placed to watch over a vulnerable region. Continues on...

BEGINNING ON PAGE 26

Little is known about the wife of the first Robert de Brus except that her name was Agnes, that she was linked with her husband in his grants to foundations at Guisborough, York and Whitby, and that she made a gift to Guisborough priory in her own right, of the manor of Carlton by Camblesforth. 32 This last grant has given rise to the theory that Agnes was the daughter of a Payne!, an idea which Farrer rightly rejected. Although Carlton was soke of the Paynel manor of Drax, it had been held by the king in1086, formed part of the original Brus fief and was later held by Paynel of Brus not the other way round. It is therefore more likely that Carlton had been gifted to Agnes by her husband as part of her dower. 33 Farrer's own initial suggestion was that Agnes was daughter of Geoffrey Bainard, a sheriff of Yorkshire who briefly held the manor of Burton [Agnes] in the time of Rufus. Although King supports this theory, Farrer himself ultimately rejected it, with good reason. Like Carlton, Burton [Agnes] was part of the initial Brus fief, and two of its berewicks were added in the exchange of 1103 as a direct grant from the king. In 1086 the manor had been held by the king and let out to farm, so despite Geoffrey Bainard granting the church and some land there to St Mary's, York, he may only have held it temporarily or by virtue of his office. Furthermore, Agnes is not named at all in her husband's own grant of the church of Burton [Agnes] to York, making it unlikely that she was Geoffrey's heir. Finally, theappellation 'Agnes' was not used until the mid-thirteenth century and may well have come from Agnes d'Aumale, wife of Adam de Brus I•34 In contrast to these unsubstantiated suggestions for the descent of Robert's wife, a few clues can be found from charter evidence which give tentative support for Farrer's subsequent theory, endorsed by Clay, that she was a Surdeval heiress. 35 In the foundation grant to Guisborough priory, which contained a large amount of Mortain/Surdeval land, not only is Agnes's namelinked with her husband's, but their son, Adam, is designated as 'our' heir, suggesting that some of the lands were of her inheritance. The same meaning is implicit in the wording of an entry in the chartulary of St Mary's, York, regarding the grant of amill and land in Sunderlandwick, made by Robert, his wife and their heirs. Sunderlandwick, a manor near Driffield in the East Riding, may well have been in Surdeval's hands after Gospatric had forfeited it and come to Brus as his wife's maritagium.36 In addition to these clues about Agnes herself, it has been noted that Robert de Brus I witnessed Henry I's confirmation of a grant by the count of Mortain to Marmoutier before 1104, in association with Ralph Paynel. This would suggest that both of them already had an interest in the count's lands through marriage to his tenant's daughters and possible heirs. 37 By whatever means the Mortain/Surdeval lands passed to Robert de Brus, they must have been a welcome and valuable addition to his barony. They included not only the manor of Skelton, where the castle to which he later transferred his caput may already have existed, but also the two manors in Guisborough which provided the site and major part of his endowment for Guisborough priory and must therefore,like his Chester lands, have come to him before c.1119.38 The Brus lordship, then, was a composite creation, and the fief as recorded in Domesday is far from the whole story. Only when the tenancies from Chester and the former Mortain lands are taken into account can its true value be assessed, and it was these additions which consolidated Robert's power within the North Riding. Despite the presence of other powerful families in the region, by c.1120 Robert de Brus had become the dominant baron in Cleveland, and his estates in the Langbaurgh wapentake totalled more than those of the other four major tenants-in-chief put together. 39 He effectively controlled the south bank of the River Tees from Hornby, some seven miles above Yarm, to the sea; and together with the Percys of Topcliffe, he held much of the coast-line running south from its estuary as far as Runswick Bay.
His inland holdings included not only Eskdale, which gave him authority over most of the northern flank of the Cleveland hills, but also the majority of the manors which lay between those hills and the valley of the Tees. So that from the distinctive height of Roseberry Topping (then called Osenburgh) Robert de Brus was lord of almost all that the eye can see.4°
Having established in Cleveland a tenant-in-chief whom he clearly trusted, it was a logical move for Henry I to extend the area of Brus's authority into the lands immediately north of the Tees, into the district of Hartness. Robert thereby became responsible for the defence of the whole estuary of the Tees, together with a further stretch of coast which included the sandy beaches and bay of St Hilda's Isle where Hartlepool was later established. Hartness lay within the wapentake of Sadberge, a surviving remnant of the earldom of Northumbria, an outpost of royal jurisdiction surrounded by Durham episcopal lands, which later caused problems for Robert's descendants when it became incorporated into the bishop's administration. 41 The
region had suffered as much as, if not more than, Yorkshire in the early years of the Norman era, both from the rebellion of its earls and the associated incursions of the Scots, which lasted well into the reign of Rufus. Norman administration had barely touched the region. Until 1100 few Norman baronies had been created north of the Tees. Thus the establishment of Robert de Brus in Hartness should be seen in the context of Henry I's continuing extension of royal authority.42
Since the two churches of the district at Hart and Stranton (now West Hartlepool) were included in Brus's foundation grant to Guisborough priory, he had
clearly been enfeoffed with Hartness before c.1119 and therefore in conjunction with his Cleveland lands. 43 Together they form a remarkably cohesive district, bounded on the north by the deep gorge of the Eden and on the south by the steep escarpment of the Cleveland hills, with the basin of the Tees at its centre. From the (comparative) heights of Hartness above the manors of Hart and Elwick, the Cleveland hills are clearly visible, and both viewpoints provide a commanding prospect of the river plain. With the addition of his view of the coast-line from the ramparts of Skelton castle, Robert de Brus was well placed to watch over a vulnerable region.
Continues on...