Talk:Hugh of Cyfeiliog, 5th Earl of Chester

Progeny of Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester, and their Spouses
Clarification of the sections regarding Hugh's children, as given in the cited sources, would be appreciated. Excepting Amicia, the sources cited in regard to Hugh's children are as follows:

1. ^ The Annales Londonienses record that Ranulphus comes Cestriæ had four sisters primogenita...Matilda...secunda...Mabillia...tertia...Agnes...quarta...Hawisia. Charles Cawley, England, earls created 1067-1122

2. ^ Ormerod's History of Cheshire, Vol. 1, pp.47, 526; Vol. 2, pp.15, 44, 328/9, 331-333, 347, 350; Vol. 3, pp.162, 169, 188/9, 201, 205 states that William Belward lived in the time of King Stephen, 1135-1154, and married Beatrix, daughter of Hugh de Bohun, alias Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester.

The Annals of London are perhaps accurate enough in naming some of Hugh's children, though it's not clear that the Annals name any of the spouses of Hugh's children. I don't currently have access to the Annals.

I am having a bit of trouble with Ormerod. Before launching into an examination of the references, I should note that I am working from Ormerod's original 1819 publication. I have read that a "revised" version, produced by Thomas Helsby, was prepared posthumously between 1875 and 1882 (Ormerod died in 1873). If this is the version which was referenced, the following may be irrelevant, but it would help if to clarify, in the citation, which version was referenced. In the following, I have prefixed sections which seem to contribute relevant material with the symbol "=>".

=> In checking the citations for Volume 1, I find the same children listed as in the Annals (above) (p. 47).

The reference to p. 526 of the same volume leaves me baffled as there seems to be no mention of Hugh's family at all.

In checking Volume 2 of Ormerod, pp. 14-15 appears to be in reference to the acquisition of Thornton by Peter le Clerk, "Secretary of Randle [i.e. Ranulph] Blondeville, Earl of Chester". No connection is made between Ranulph and his father, Hugh, or Ranulphus' siblings. Other records show him to be the son of Hugh Kevelioc, but it is not clear why this section from Ormerod is cited because it doesn't seem to serve as evidence supporting any familial connections.

The reference to p. 44 also baffles me as it only mentions Ranulph indirectly in the passage "... Peter, the clerk of the earl of Chester [i.e. Ranulph]". Again, no evidence of familial connections.

Citation to pp. 328-329 again shows no connection at all and, in fact, seem to be lacking any reference to Earl Hugh and his children at all. Perhaps the following passage was intended: "Mabilia ... wife of William Belward". However, this Mabilia is clearly the daughter of a Robert Fitz Hugh who held Malpas at the time of Domesday (1086). As Hugh Kevelioc was born about 1147 (per the main article), his daughter Mabilia would have been born somewhat later, and married even later than that. Probably not earlier than the late 12th cent. Clearly, this Mabilia could not have been Hugh's daughter, and the William Belward mentioned by Ormerod could not have been the same who, according to the article, married Hugh's daughter Beatrix. We will see next that there were two William Belwards - father and son.

=> The next reference (pp. 331-333) clearly deal with the progeny of Robert Fitz Hugh (see above), but only on p. 333 is even passing reference given to "Randle Meschines, earl of Chester [i.e. Ranulph]". However, we finally find: "William Belward ... said to have married a daughter of Hugh Kevelioc, of Chester." Here we are able to note that the William Belward who allegedly married Hugh's daughter was the son an elder William Belward. Also, note the expression "said to". I will return to allegations of Beatrix marrying William, and of her being Hugh Kevelioc's daughter, below.

The citation on p. 347 again confirms the marriage of the elder William Belward to Mabilia, daughter of Robert Fitz Hugh. But no mention of connections to the family of Earl Hugh are made.

I can find no connections to Hugh's family at all in the reference to p. 350.

Turning finally to Volume 3 of Ormerod, in the first citation (p. 162) there is a vague reference to Randle [i.e. "Ranulph"] in the following passage: "Adam de Praers, 1119, witness to earl Randle's charter to Chester Abbey", but again not enough to establish any family connections.

I again find no connections to Hugh's family in the citation for p. 169.

"Randle Blundeville" (i.e. Ranulph de Blondeville) is mentioned in passing on p. 188, but again no family connections.

Finally, I find no reference at all to Hugh's family in the reference to pp. 201, 205.

In summary, there were only two cited sections from Ormerod which appear to have been useful in actually establishing family connections for Hugh's children, or their spouses: (1) Vol. 1, p. 47 and (2) Vol. 2, p. 333. Certainly the first of these is sufficient to confirm the children's name as given in the Annals of London. Though it was stated (above) that "William Belward ... married Beatrix, daughter of Hugh de Bohun, alias Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester", I found been unable to locate this anywhere in Ormerod's work at all. It may be worth noting that "Publications of the Harleian Society, Vol. XVIII - Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580 ...", names Beatrix as a "soror Hugonis Keveliock". "Soror" does not mean daughter, it means "sister". Furthermore, this source shows Beatrix as having married "Radulphus Baro[n] de Mallpas". Note that this Radulphus was not the same as Hugh's son Ranulph. Also, the "Visitation of Cheshire" gives William Belward as the father of Radulph and Beatrix's son-in-law, David "le Clerk" de Malpas, rather than as the spouse of Beatrix. Finally, I have found no evidence ever, anywhere, that Hugh Kevelioc or any of his relatives were ever referred to as "de Bohun". Would be nice if you could provide a source for this. I did some quick poking around and just can't find anything. The Wikipedia article "Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford" includes notes for a tentative son named Hugh, as follows: "Hugh de Bohun? This name appears only in one medieval source, which gives Bohun names (see Flores Historiarum) and was a probably a copyist's error for 'Humphrey'. Hugh was never used by the main branch of the Bohuns in England". Of course, this is not a strong proof one way or another, but, for lack of supporting evidence, I am strongly inclined to believe that the Bohun name has no place at least with Hugh Kevelioc's immediate family.

In closing, I suggest removing a lot of references to spurious page numbers which don't seem to contribute much. Also, I believe that Beatrix was likely Hugh's sister, but it may be a good idea to reference the "Visitation of Cheshire" to support this connection, or other sources if you wish to argue otherwise.

G3NCR42Y (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by G3NCR42Y (talk • contribs) 15:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)