William = Beatrice.
of Arques, |
1086. |
|
|
(1) Nigel = Emma, = (2) Manasses,
de Monville. | heiress of | _Comte_ of
| her father's | Guisnes,
| English | d. _circ._
| fief. | 1139.
| |
Rualon = Matilda. Rose (or = Henry,
d'Avranches | Sybil), | Castellan of
(_de Abrincis_), | ob. v. p. | Bourbourg.
held part of the | |
Arques fief | |
_jure uxoris_, | |
Sheriff of Kent | |
1130. | |
| |
+-----------+ |
| |
William (1) AUBREY = Beatrice, = (2) Baldwin,
d'Avranches, DE VERE. sole heiress. Lord of
son and heir. Ardres.
This descent renders the above clause in the charter intelligible at once, for it shows that Aubrey was to reunite the whole Arques fief in his own holding jure uxoris.
Mr. Stapleton, who prints the clause from the translation given by Dugdale, justly pronounces it "extremely important, as establishing the fact of his marriage at its date with the heiress of the barony of Arques as well as of the comté of Guisnes." With Aubrey's tenure of this comté I have dealt at p. 188.
[1149] Archæologia, vol. xxxi. pp. 216-237.
APPENDIX X.
ROGER "DE RAMIS."
(See p. [181].)
The entries relating to the fief of this tenant in capite are probably as corrupt as any to be found in the Liber Niger.
The name of the family being "de Raimes"—Latinized in this charter and Domesday invariably as de Ramis—an inevitable confusion soon arose between it and the name of their chief seat in England, Rayne, co. Essex. Morant, in his history of Essex, identifies the two. Thus, Rayne being entered in Domesday and in the Liber Niger as "Raines," the name of the family appears in the latter as "de Raines," "de Reines" (i. 237), "de Ramis," "de Raimis," and "de Raimes" (i. 239, 240). The Domesday tenant was Roger "de Ramis," who was succeeded by William "de Raimes," who was dead in 1130, when his sons Roger and Robert are found indebted to the Crown for their reliefs and for their father's debts (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I.). Further, if the Liber Niger (i. 237, 239) is to be trusted, there were in 1135 two Essex fiefs, held respectively by these very sons, Roger and Robert "de Ramis." So far all is clear. But when we come to the cartæ of 1166 all is hopeless confusion. There are, certainly, two fiefs entered in the Essex portion, but while the carta of that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" is intelligible, though very corrupt, the other is assigned by an amazing blunder to William fitz Miles, who was merely one of the under-tenants. Moreover, the entries are so similar that they might be easily taken for variants of the same carta.
Let us, however, now turn to the Pipe-Roll of 1159 (5 Hen. II.). We there find these entries (p. 5) under Essex:—